SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Bom) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
M.S. Deshpande, J.
Kalidas s/o. Durgaji Shinde.... Petitioner.
Versus
Parwatibai w/o. Kalidas Shinde.... Respondents.
Criminal Revision Application No. 89-A of 1982, decided on 28-1-1985.
Advocates appeared :
B.A. Darak, for petitioner.
V.B. Patil, for respondent No. 1.
A.M. Dabir, A.P.P., for respondent No. 2-State.

A divorced wife is not automatically entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without proving neglect or refusal to maintain by the husband.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 125(1), EXPLANATION (B) - DIVORCED WIFE - ENTITLEMENT TO MAINTENANCE - CONDITIONS - NEGLECT OR REFUSAL TO MAINTAIN - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT - BURDEN OF PROOF.

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a revision application challenging the order of the Sessions Judge awarding maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The wife had filed an application for maintenance, claiming that the husband had neglected and refused to maintain her after she was driven out of the house due to cruelty. The husband contested the application, arguing that he was not liable to pay maintenance since the wife had deserted him and he had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and subsequently a divorce.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as she had failed to prove that the husband had neglected or refused to maintain her. The Court noted that the husband had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which showed that the wife had deserted him without any sufficient reason. Therefore, the wife was not entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125.

Issues: 1. Whether a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without proving neglect or refusal to maintain by the husband? 2. Whether the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband is sufficient to establish neglect or refusal to maintain the wife?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the mere fact that a woman is a divorced wife does not automatically entitle her to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The wife must still prove that the husband has neglected or refused to maintain her. 2. The Court held that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the husband was sufficient to establish that the wife had deserted him without any sufficient reason. Therefore, the wife was not entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125.

Final Decision: The revision application was allowed, and the order of the Sessions Judge awarding maintenance to the wife was set aside. The order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the wife's application for maintenance was restored.

JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This revision application by the husband is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, reversing the dismissal of the respondent's application for maintenance and awarding Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to her.

2. The respondent's case was that she was married to the petitioner about six years ago and resided with him for about 15 months, but he treated her with cruelty and drove her out of the house thus requiring her to reside with her brother. Several attempts to bring about reconciliation failed. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree against, though he never desired to take her to his house. He thus refused and neglected to maintain her. Contending that she was unable to maintain herself, while the petitioner had sufficient means to maintain her, she sought a direction against the petitioner for paying Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner resisted the application by urging that because of his desertion by the respondent, he had to bring a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree for restitution in 1977. Since that decree was not obeyed, he brought a petition for divorce and obtained a divorce against her. He denied his liability to pay maintenance.

3. The learned Magistrate found that the respondent had not proved that the petitioner had refused and neglected to maintain her and that though she was unable to maintain herself she was not entitled to maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge took note of the fact that a divorce had been obtained and that on that Court the respondent became entitled to ask for maintenance. He, therefore, awarded Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to the respondent.

4. In this revision application by the husband petitioner the main point urged was that the status of being a divorce by itself could not invest the respondent with a right to seek maintenance in view of the provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Under section 125(1) an order of maintenance can be made if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and upon proof of such neglect or refusal, a Magistrate of the first class may order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife. Under Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of section 125, "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. The eligibility of a wife to seek maintenance can arise only upon proof of neglect or refusal to maintain her. Sub-section (4) of section 125 provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband, if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

5. On behalf of the respondent the provisions of sub-section (4) were relied upon and reliance was also placed on the observations of this Court in (Vinod Wamanrao Nehulkar v. Smt. Mangala Vinod Nehulkar)1, 1981 Bombay Cases Report 962 : 1 M.C. 148. But that case is clearly distinguishable on facts because the husband there filed a petition for divorce alleging that the wife was suffering from venereal disease in which the wife remained absent and the marriage was dissolved. Upon the wife's filing a petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was held that the wife was entitled to maintenance. The question of proving refusal or neglect before such an action could be brought, did not come up for consideration in that case. Reliance was also placed on a learned Single Judge's observation of this Court in (Balaji v. Parubai)2, 1983 Maharashtra Law Reporter 544 : 1984(1) Bom.C.R. 61. where it was held that under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance and this is the right which did not exis







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top