1. Maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC — Interim order granted — Subsequent compromise to cohabit — Breakdown of reconciliation — High Court set aside maintenance orders. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1468
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi, M. Srinivasan
MAHUA BISWAS (SMT.), APPELLANT
VERSUS
SWAGATA BISWAS AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1840 of 1997), decided on November 17, 1997.
Important Points
The Court held that where a wife attempts to reconcile with her husband, previous maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC should be viewed as suspended rather than extinguished. This prevents injustice and ensures that genuine efforts at rehabilitation do not necessitate new litigation on a fresh cause of action.
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Matrimonial dispute between parties - Claim was refuted by husband - Compromise - Taking that into account CJM - awarded token maintenance at the rate per to appellant and like amount to her minor daughter as such section - Aggrieved she moved High Court in revision whereat it was noticed that matrimonial case between the parties stood compromised and one of the terms was that she would go and live with her husband - According to assertion of the husband-respondent she had in terms thereof come to live with him but later the spouses fell apart - On that basis it was urged that the orders of maintenance could not be revived as there had arisen fresh cause of action – Held, Out of two courses court would prefer to adopt the first one for if court were to resort to second option it would lead to injustice - In given case the wife may then be reluctant to settle with her husband lest she lose order of maintenance secured on his neglect or refusal - Her husband on the other side would jump to impromptu devices to demolish maintenance order in duping wife to temporary reconciliation -Thus in order to do complete justice between the parties court would in the facts and circumstances activate wifes claim to maintenance and put her in same position as before - Evidently she has obtained a maintenance order at a figure which was taken into account by the Court of CJM - Taking that into account court order the husband to pay to his wife and the daughter a sum of Rs - each effective - Sum which was earlier ordered by this Court to be paid to the wife and her daughter as arrears of maintenance shall be taken have been duly paid up til irrespective of the rate of maintenance - This streamlines the dispute between the parties - It is made clear that it is open to the parties to claim such other relief as may be due to him/her by raising a matrimonial dispute before the matrimonial court – Appeal allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a compromise to cohabit extinguishes a maintenance order or merely suspends it, and whether a subsequent breakdown requires a fresh cause of action. (Para 2 )
3. A compromise to cohabit should be viewed as a suspension of maintenance rather than total extinction to prevent husbands from using temporary reconciliation to demolish maintenance orders. (Para 3 )
4. Maintenance orders suspended by a compromise to cohabit are not wiped out and can be reactivated upon the failure of such reconciliation to ensure justice. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Maintenance orders reactivated and husband directed to pay specified monthly sums to wife and daughter. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does a compromise to cohabit extinguish a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC?
No, such a compromise can be viewed as a suspension of the maintenance order rather than a total extinction, allowing for its reactivation if the reconciliation fails. (Para 3 )
7. What policy considerations justify treating a maintenance order as suspended during reconciliation?
This prevents injustice where a wife might be reluctant to settle for fear of losing maintenance, or a husband might use a temporary reconciliation as a device to demolish the maintenance order. (Para 3 )
8. Must a party file a new petition for maintenance after a failed reconciliation attempt?
Not necessarily; the court may activate the previous claim to maintenance to put the party in the same position as before, avoiding the need for new litigation. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-wife petitioned against the respondent-husband in the Court of the C.J.M., Howrah, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), claiming maintenance for herself at the rate of Rs. 1500 per mensem and for her minor daughter @ Rs. 1000 per mensem. Undeniably, maintenance at such rates could be claimed by her because of a State Amendment to Section 125 of the CrPC. The claim was refuted by the husband. It came to light in a matrimonial dispute between the parties the appellant-wife had been able to secure an interim maintenance order @ Rs. 1000 per mensem for herself and an equivalent amount for her minor daughter. Taking that into account, the C.J.M. awarded token maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem to the appellant and a like amount to her minor daughter as such under the said section. Aggrieved, she moved the High Court in revision whereat it was noticed that the matrimonial case between the parties stood compromised and one of the terms was that she would go and live with her husband. According to the assertion of the husband-respondent, she had in terms thereof come to live with him but later the spouses fell apart. On that basis it was urged that the orders of maintenance could not be revived as there had arisen a fresh cause of action. The High Court by the impugned order agreed with the husband-respondent and set aside the orders of maintenance altogether, leaving the wife to approach again the criminal court for appropriate relief. This constitutes the subject-matter of the appeal here.
3. The matter can be viewed from either angle. It can be viewed that there was a genuine effort by the wife to rehabilitate herself in her matrimonial home but in vain. The previous orders of maintenance in a manner of speaking could at best be taken to have been suspended but not wiped out altogether. The other view can be that the maintenance order stood exhausted and thus she be left to fight a new litigation on a fresh cause of action. Out of the two courses, we would prefer to adopt the first one, for if we were to resort to the second option, it would lead to injustice. In a given case the wife may then be reluctant to settle with her husband lest she lose the order of maintenance secured on his neglect or refusal. Her husband on the other side, would jump to impromptu devices to demolish the maintenance order in duping the wife to a temporary reconciliation. Thus, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we would in the facts and circumstances activate the wifes claim to maintenance and put her in the same position as before. Evidently, she has obtained a maintenance order at a figure which was taken into account by the Court of the C.J.M. Taking that into account, we order the husband to pay to his wife and the daughter a sum of Rs. 1000 each, effective from 1-10-1997. The sum of Rs. 12,000 which was earlier ordered by this Court to be paid to the wife and her daughter as arrears of maintenance shall be taken to have been duly paid uptil 30-9-1997, irrespective of the rate of maintenance. This streamlines the dispute between the parties. It is made clear that it is open to the parties to claim such other relief as may be due to him/her by raising a matrimonial dispute before the matrimonial court.
4. The appeal is, thus, allowed in the manner aforementioned.
