1999 Supreme(Cal) 620
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Malay Kumar Basu, J.
Suvankar Sengupta – Petitioner
Versus
Kakali Sengupta – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 215 of 1999
Decided On: December 2, 1999
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the divorce was granted by mutual consent, as long as the other conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CRPC - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, SECTION 13B - DIVORCED WIFE - MAINTENANCE RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 125(1) EXPLANATION (B) AND SUB-SECTIONS (4) AND (5) - APPLICABILITY OF MAINTENANCE TO DIVORCEE WIFE DESPITE MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a maintenance petition filed by his divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC, arguing that since the divorce was granted by mutual consent, she was not entitled to maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the divorce was granted by mutual consent, as long as the other conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled.
Issues: Whether a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the divorce was granted by mutual consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 125(1) Explanation (b) and sub-sections (4) and (5) of the CrPC and held that the sole object of providing maintenance under Section 125 is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and that a divorced wife is included in the definition of 'wife' for the purposes of this section.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application and affirmed the impugned order, holding that the wife was entitled to file a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC despite the divorce being granted by mutual consent.
1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 3.11.98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, within the District of North 24 Parganas in connection with Maintenance Case No. M. 51 of 1997 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was filed by the wife praying for maintenance for herself and her minor sons having under the custody of the mother, respondent no.2.
2. The case of the applicant is that the marriage between him and the opposite party took place in 1990 as per the Hindu Rites, but after the lapse of two years, the marriage broke down and the parties filed a joint petition for decree of divorce on mutual consent under the provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and a decree of divorce on mutual consent was passed thereby dissolving their marriage in Matrimonial Suit No. 481 of 1992. But subsequently respondent i.e., the divorced wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance from this revisional application before the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore and finally the case being no. 51 of 1997 was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore fur hearing. There this petitioner appeared and challenged the legal maintainability of that maintenance petition on the ground that there having been a decree of divorce on mutual consent and the parties living separately such a petition could not lie. But that petition was heard and dismissed by the learned Magistrate and a date for hearing on merit of the case has been fixed. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application challenging the same as illegal and invalid.
3. On a perusal of the impugned order I find that learned Magistrate rejected the contention of the husband-petitioner that the application for maintenance filed by the Opposite Party was not legally maintainable since she had been divorced on the strength of a decree passed by a Civil Court of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that in view of the Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr. P.C. wife includes a divorcee wife if she has not remarried. I do not find any fault with this finding of the Court below. Even if the divorce is a result of mutual consent, there will be no change in this legal position, inasmuch as, the sole object of providing such kind of maintenance is to prevent destitution and vagrancy. So, if the other conditions laid down under Section 125 for getting this benefit are fulfilled, a wife divorced on mutual consent will be equally entitled to get an award of maintenance under this section. The expression occurring in sub-section (4) or (5) of Section 125, namely "if they are living separately by mutual consent" should not be equated with the separate living in consequence of a decree of divorce on mutual consent being passed by a Civil Court. Divorce presupposes separate living. But this separate living is not to be treated as separate living on mutual consent. Otherwise, the inclusion of a divorced wife in the definition of wife would have been unnecessary. Separate living is a course of law and an essential corollary of a decree of divorce and that separate living cannot be treated as separate living on mutual consent. This is why the contention of the petitioner that the findings of the learned Magistrate are against the spirit behind the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 125 is unacceptable.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to a Single Bench decision of Karnataka High Court reported in 1987 Cr. LJ 163, in support of his contention. On going through this judgment I find that it has no application to the present case. In this case reference, in view of disputes and differences between the husband and wife they entered into a mutual agreeme