SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. BHARUCHA AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.
Sudeep Chaudhary, AppellantVersus
Radha Chaudhary, Respondent.
Crl. Appeal No. 111 of 1997 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 3379 of 1995), D/- 31-1-1997.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) and was awarded Rs. 350/- p.m. which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/- p.m. In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife sought alimony and was granted Rs. 600/- p.m. which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 800/- p.m. The husband failed to pay the maintenance amounts, and the wife started recovery proceedings. The husband contended that the maintenance amounts should be adjusted against the interim alimony. The Magistrate upheld the contention, but the High Court held that the Magistrate was in error. The Supreme Court held that the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same. The Court directed the husband to pay the wife Rs. 1,000/- p.m. towards maintenance, which includes both the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings. The arrears, if any, were to be paid within 8 weeks. This order was subject to further orders at the final disposal of the matrimonial proceedings. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Finding of the Court:
Ratio Decidendi:
Result:
Judgement
BHARUCHA, J. :- Special leave granted.
2. The respondent-wife has been served by substituted service but does not appear.
3. The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are estranged. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance which was awarded at the rate of Rs. 350/- p.m. with effect from 3rd July, 1990, and was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/- p.m.
4. In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the wife sought alimony. It was granted at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. on 11th August, 1987, and the amount thereof was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 800/- p.m.
5. Since the husband failed to pay the amount of maintenance as aforesaid, the wife started recovery proceedings. The husband contended that the maintenance amounts should be adjusted against the interim alimony and the Magistrate before whom the recovery proceedings were pending upheld the contention. The High Court, in the order which is under appeal, held that the Magistrate was in error in directing adjustment of the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6. We are of the view that the High Court was in error. The amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same. In the absence of the wife, we are, however, not inclined to go into any detailed discussion of the law.
7. At the same time, we feel that the claims of the husband and the wife are to be balanced. We, therefore, direct that the husband shall pay to the wife towards maintenance (which now comprehends both the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings) the sum of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. commencing from 3rd July, 1990. The arrears, if any, shall be paid within 8 weeks.
8. This order will be subject to such orders as may be passed at the stage of final disposal of 537 the matrimonial proceedings.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.