SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Gajendra Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
Reena Balmiki & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1533 of 2025 (Arising From SLP(Crl.) No. 12249 of 2023)
Decided On : 26-03-2025
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellanthusband against the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Revision No. 396 of 2017 wherein the High Court dismissed the said revision petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnised on 6th October, 2006 as per Hindu vedic rites and rituals. The parties lived together for a little over a year and as per the appellant, the respondent left the matrimonial house on 25th December, 2007. The respondent also admits that they have been living separately since December, 2007, albeit as per her, it is due to the dowry demand and torture meted out to her at the hands of the appellant and his family.
4. Thereafter, the respondent instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] seeking maintenance from the appellant. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanprayag, Chamoli, vide order dated 07.05.2010, allowed the respondent’s application and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application.
5. Subsequently in November, 2015, the respondent preferred a complaint against the appellant and his family members under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [DV Act] along with an application under Section 23 of the DV Act seeking grant of interim maintenance. Accordingly, the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, disposed of the said application vide order dated 20.06.2016 and directed the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in addition to earlier awarded amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, the appellant was also directed to provide accommodation to the respondent.
6. As such, both the parties filed respective appeals before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun against the order dated 20.06.2016. Both the appeals were rejected vide order dated 25.09.2017, re-affirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
7. The appellant had earlier filed a suit for divorce which was contested by the respondent who was praying for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, vide order dated 22.01.2019, had rejected the appellant’s petition seeking divorce and allowed the prayer of the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant had preferred an appeal against the order dated 22.01.2019 before the High Court which is still pending adjudication.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2017, the appellanthusband preferred the Criminal Revision before the High Court seeking an adjustment of Rs. 5,000/- which is being paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings against the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which has been awarded under the DV Act and sought deduction of the previous amount from Rs. 15,000/- accordingly. However, the High Court refused to interfere in the assailed order and noted that the Courts below have taken into consideration the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and have accordingly decided the amount under the DV Act, and as such, no “adjustment” is required to be done. Accordingly, the Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court.
9. Aggrieved, the appellant-husband is before us.
10. As there were longstanding arrears of maintenance, this Court, while issuing notice in the matter on 15.09.2023, had ensured that the appellant deposited a draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Registrar, Supreme Court of India towards 50% amount of the arrears of the maintenance awarded. This amount was invested by the Registry in an interest bearing fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank.
11. Subsequently, on 18.03.2024, we had directed the abovementioned amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with the accrued interest thereon to be paid to the
AI
The court established that prolonged separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage justify granting a divorce and awarding permanent alimony.
(1) A dead marriage can be dissolved in exercise of Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India.(2) Principle for determination of maintenance by way of one-time settlement appl....
The court established that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with evidence, and the absence of such evidence can lead to the dismissal of divorce petitions.
(1) A dead marriage can be dissolved by Supreme Court by exercising discretionary power under Article 142 of Constitution.(2) Permanent alimony – Amount of permanent alimony should not penalize husba....
The Supreme Court emphasized that permanent alimony is to ensure dependent spouses are supported post-divorce, enhancing the amount to Rs. 5 lakhs due to inadequate initial award.
Prolonged separation over 20 years establishes irretrievable breakdown (dead wood marriage), warranting divorce; permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakhs fixed balancing husband's finances and wife's/daughte....
Divorce – A dead marriage can be given a decent quietus while protecting interest of divorced wife by granting her a decent alimony.
The court upheld the divorce as mutual consent was reflected in prolonged separation, emphasizing the need for permanent alimony considering the parties' financial circumstances.
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.