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

1998 Supreme(Bom) 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.V. Savant S.S. Parkar, JJ.
Bhagwan Raoji Dale..... Petitioner.
Versus
Sushma alias Nanda Bhagwan Dale..... Respondent.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 688 of 1994, decided on 17/18-4-1998.
Advocates appeared :
S.V. Kotwal, for petitioner.
Miss. Smita Mane, for respondent No. 1.
D.N. Salvi, A.P.P., for State.

Headnote:Sections 125 and 127-Claim for maintenance by divorced wife - Wife refused to stay with husband without any reasonable cause-Two decrees for restitution of conjugal rights and divorce obtained- Held, such case being covered under explanation of Section 125(1), Cr PC wife not entitled to maintenance Magistrate can cancel grant of maintenance under Section 127, Cr PC-In the facts and circumstances proved in this case and particularly in the light of the decree for restitution of conjugal right, the wife was not entitled to obtain maintenance even when the marriage was subsisting. In this behalf sub-section (4) of Section 125 needs to be considered. If the respondent-wife had refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, she would not have been entitled to receive any allowance from the husband under Section 125 of Code. Sub-section (4) of Section 125 clearly states that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under Section 125 if (i) she is living in adultery or (ii) without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or (iii) they are living separately by mutual consent. The fact that the husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 31st July, 1979 in a petition filed by him on 12th June, 1978 would, clearly disentitle the wife from receiving maintenance in view of the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 125. It is true that Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) states that for the purpose of Chapter IX the wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband has not remained. However, the Apex Court has set at rest the controversy as to whether the express wife in sub- section (4) of Section 125 can have the extended meaning of including a woman who has been divorced. If the relationship of husband and wife bas come to an end as a result of the decree for divorce, there can be no question of a divorced woman living in adultery or without sufficient reason refusing to live with her husband. After divorce there is no occasion for a woman to live with her husband. There would be no question of husband and wife living separately by mutual consent because after divorce there is no need or consent to live separately.

JUDGMENT

A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Heard all the learned Counsel : Mr. S.V. Kotwal for the petitioner-husband : Miss. Smita Mane for respondent No. 1 wife and Mr. D.N. Salvi, A.P.P. for respondents No. 2 State.

2. This petition has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by learned Chief Justice as a result of the order dated 19th April, 1995 passed by G.R. Majithia, J., since the learned Judge thought that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Sharadchandra Satbhai v. Indubai Satbhai)1, 1978 Mh.L.J. 123 required reconsideration in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussian Fissalli Chothia)2, 1979 Mh.L.J. 95 S.C. : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 362. Majithia, J., observed that the question as to whether a divorced wife has a right to claim maintenance under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was important. He, therefore, directed the office to place the matter before the learned Chief Justice. Consequently, the matter has been placed before us for final hearing.

3. In the facts of the case before us the short question which arises for our consideration is whether the first respondent wife against whom the petitioner has obtained a decree for divorce is entitled to get maintenance under section 125 of the 1973 Code. The question really revolves around the interpretation of Clause (b) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 125 of the Code. Section 125 reads as under :

"125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.

A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this chapter.

(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 is deemed not to have attained majority :

(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance.

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made :

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due :

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is sa



























































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