Back
Divorced woman can claim even after divorce:
In a significant ruling on the rights of divorced women, the has held that a woman can claim under from her former husband even if the divorce was granted on the ground of her .
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra allowed a criminal revision filed by a woman whose claim had been rejected by the , emphasizing that a divorced woman continues to enjoy the status of a "wife" for the limited purpose of claiming under the provision.
Background of the Case
The revisionist, Smt. Suneeta, married Rajesh Kumar Yadav in her childhood according to Hindu rites. After the gauna ceremony, she moved to her matrimonial home. Her husband joined the , and she alleged that he and his family subjected her to harassment and torture for additional dowry, including a demand for Rs. 1 lakh cash, a motorcycle, and a color television. She claimed that in , the family attempted to set her ablaze, and later, her husband solemnized a second marriage and refused to maintain her and their child.
In , she filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC. The case was later transferred to the , which dismissed the petition in , holding that she had failed to prove a sufficient reason for living separately from her husband.
During the proceedings before the High Court, it emerged that the husband had obtained an ex parte divorce decree on , on the ground of . It also came to light that he had remarried and recorded the second wife's name in his service records.
Arguments Before the High Court
The revisionist's counsel argued that the Family Court erred in rejecting the claim. They pointed out that the wife had received only for her son through army authorities, not for herself. They further submitted that the husband's second marriage and the divorce decree did not absolve him of the liability to maintain his divorced wife.
The husband's counsel contended that the wife had deserted him and that the divorce decree based on should bar her claim. They relied on the judgment in to argue that the husband's remarriage after the divorce was lawful under .
Legal Analysis and Precedent
The High Court examined the 's decision in Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri (2000), which dealt with the same issue. The had held that even after a divorce, a woman continues to be a "wife" within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC by virtue of . The court clarified that if a divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and has not remarried, she is entitled to , regardless of the ground on which the divorce was granted.
Justice Mishra observed:
"The law is very clear on this aspect that a divorced woman is also entitled to
until she gets remarried or she is capable to maintain herself by her own earning, if there is no legal embargo."
The court distinguished between during the subsistence of marriage and after divorce, noting that the claim of a divorced wife is founded on the explanation to Section 125(1), not on the subsistence of marital relations.
Key Observations
The High Court made several critical observations:
-
The Family Court's order rejecting the
claim "
" was
"vitiated by legal and factual error"
and could not be sustained. - Even if the wife was not entitled to for the period prior to the divorce, she could claim it from the date of divorce () onwards, provided she remains unmarried.
- The minor son was entitled to until attaining majority, after accounting for the amount already received through army authorities.
- The husband's second marriage and the divorce decree did not extinguish the wife's right to claim .
The Court's Decision
The High Court set aside the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets, income, and liabilities in compliance with the 's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021). Pending the fresh adjudication, the husband was ordered to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as interim to the wife.
The revision was allowed, and the Family Court was directed to decide the petition expeditiously, preferably within six months. The court clarified that any amount paid as interim would be set off against the arrears, if the petition succeeds.
This ruling reaffirms that a divorced woman's right to under Section 125 CrPC is not defeated by a -based divorce, ensuring financial protection for women even after marital dissolution.
