PATNA HIGH COURT
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
Phultara Khatoon @ Phultara – Petitioner
versus
State of Bihar and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.1208 of 2019
Decided on 27.9.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Family Court dismissed application submitted by petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that OP-husband has already divorced her and that petitioner-wife has received Rs.30,000/- as one time settlement – Petitioner is legally wedded wife of OP – As of now, OP has remarried another lady – Petitioner categorically stated that she has not taken any money from her husband – Finding recorded by Family Court that petitioner has settled her matter, one time fully and finally, is not in accordance with evidence available on record – Ground of rejection of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by petitioner is not sustainable – OP has performed second marriage – Petitioner has sufficient cause to reside separately from OP – There is no evidence available on record that petitioner has performed her second marriage – Since she is divorced wife, she is also entitled to maintenance till she marries another man – Considering income of OP-husband and his other liabilities, Rs.3,000/- per month would be just and proper maintenance in favour of petitioner – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari in Maintenance Case No 107 of 2014 whereby and where under the learned Family Court dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that opposite party No 2 – husband has already divorced her and also in view of the fact that the petitioner-wife has received Rs 30,000/- as one time settlement.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner - wife as well as the learned counsel for opposite party No 2 – husband. Perused the evidence adduced by both the parties before the learned Family Court.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of opposite party No 2. It is also not in dispute that as of now, opposite party No 2 has remarried with another lady.
4. Before the learned Family Court, opposite party No 2 has produced the documents which have been exhibited as Exhibit A (judgment passed by the trial Court in Complaint Case No 1217 of 2010), Exhibit B (compromise deed executed by both the parties which was submitted by the parties during proceeding of the said complaint case) and document E/1, the statement of the petitioner recorded in the said complaint case.
5. Perusal of the above mentioned document (Exhibit A) shows that the said complaint case has not been disposed of on the basis of compromise which has taken place between both the parties rather accused were acquitted for the reason that offences have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Exhibit D only shows that Rs 30,000/- has been received by the petitioner – wife from her counsel. However, during her cross-examination, the petitioner – wife categorically stated that she has not taken any money from her husband. She further categorically stated that some money was given to her by her husband – opposite party No 2 but subsequently it was returned back to her husband. In the document (Exhibit B), there is no mention of the fact that petitioner-wife is taking any money in lieu of full time settlement with opposite party No 2 – husband. In her Court statement also, the petitioner – wife has not admitted this fact. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Family Court that the petitioner –wife has settled her matter, one time fully and finally, is not in accordance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, the ground of rejection of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – wife is not sustainable.
6. On the evidence available on record, it is well established that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of opposite party No 2. At present, opposite party No 2 has performed the second marriage. Therefore, the petitioner – wife has sufficient cause to reside separately from opposite party No 2 –husband. Further, it is the case of opposite party No 2 – husband that he divorced the petitioner – wife. If so, there is no evidence available on record that the petitioner – wife has performed her second marriage. Since she is the divorced wife, as pleaded by her husband, therefore, she is also entitled to maintenance till she marries with another man.
7. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, considering the financial and social status of both the parties and further considering the income of opposite party No 2 – husband and his other liabilities, i e, second wife, I am of the view that Rs 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month would be just and proper maintenance in favour of the petitioner – wife.
8. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.02.2019 is set aside.
9. Opposite party No 2 – husband is directed to pay Rs 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the petitioner – wife from the date of submission of application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court.
10. Considering the fact that oppo
Maintenance – Where husband has performed second marriage, wife has sufficient cause to reside separately from her husband – Divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance till she marries another man....
Maintenance is one thing which has to be granted and a lady suffering cruelty, cannot be said to have deserted or voluntarily residing away.
Maintenance is one thing which has to be granted and a lady suffering cruelty, cannot be said to have deserted or voluntarily residing away.
The husband has a legal and moral responsibility to provide maintenance to his wife and children, and the court must consider various factors, including the parties' status and income, in determining....
In maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary, but reasonable evidence of divorce from a previous spouse is required to establish marital status.
Onus is on husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his c....
A unilateral declaration of divorce is insufficient under Hindu law, thus allowing a spouse to claim maintenance despite claims of prior divorce.
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.