Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Anil Kumar Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
Suman Yadav - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.390 of 2013
Decided on : 31-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.S. Rao
For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Chander Yadav with Mr. A.S. Rishi
The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors, such as the nature of the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of remarriage, in determining entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - 125 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent, who had remarried, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order did not consider whether the respondent lived with the petitioner, the result of the complaint lodged by the respondent, or the circumstances of her remarriage. It also noted the lack of proper assessment of the petitioner's income.
Issues: The issues revolved around the respondent's entitlement to maintenance, the nature of her relationship with the petitioner, and the adequacy of the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the lack of consideration given to crucial factors such as the respondent's living arrangements, the result of her complaint, and the circumstances of her remarriage, as well as the absence of a proper assessment of the petitioner's income.
Final Decision: The order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance was set aside due to its failure to address key aspects of the case.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the learned Judge-01, Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi in Maintenance Petition No.285/2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent a monthly sum of Rs.6000/- from the date of filing of the petition which is 22.05.2006 to 28.05.2010 when the respondent got remarried. The order further directs that the maintenance amount be cleared within two months from the date of the passing of the order.
2. The petitioner was allegedly married to the respondent on 26.06.2004. The allegation against the petitioner is of having demanded additional dowry even when Rs.10 lakhs, a car and an additional sum of Rs.51,000/- was given to the petitioner at the time of the marriage. The demand, it has been alleged was of Rs.5 lakhs and one MIG flat in Vasant Kunj. The petitioner is also said to have committed unnatural sex with the respondent. The respondent is also stated to have been harassed and troubled by not only the petitioner but other family members as well.
3. The petitioner preferred a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance.
4. Before the Court below, the petitioner contested such petition and submitted that the respondent did not even know the name of her husband from whom she was demanding alimony. It was further submitted that the respondent was brought thrice to her matrimonial home but no sooner would she arrive at her matrimonial home, she would start behaving as if she was under the spell of some unholy spirit. It was submitted that a police complaint was lodged on 02.09.2005. Much prior to that, the respondent had refused to join the company of the petitioner. That apart, a vague statement regarding the income of the petitioner was given by the respondent. It was further argued that all the Istridhan and other articles belonging to the respondent were returned on 10.02.2006. Thus the sum and substance of the defence of the petitioner was that the marriage was a sham. Whatever it be, it could not be consummated and, therefore, it was a void marriage. The respondent, of her own volition, took divorce from the petitioner and has now remarried. Under such circumstances, any order of the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent is against and in the teeth of the provisions of Section 125 sub clause (4).
5. It appears from going through the records that the petitioner who examined herself as PW-1 has admitted in her cross examination that she is a graduate and that her father was employed in DTC as a driver. No statement has been made by her with respect to one Jage Ram who according to the petitioner was instrumental and helpful to the respondent in lodging of the case at CAW, Nanakpura where he was employed as an ASI. In her cross examination, the respondent has admitted of having received Rs.50,000/- through cheque during the hearing of the bail petition of the petitioner. With respect to the return of the articles belonging to her, she has admitted that car and other belongings were returned.
6. However, the respondent has categorically denied the suggestion that she had refused to live with the petitioner.
7. What appears rather strange is that under such conditions the respondent has admitted that a divorce petition was filed by her which was decreed ex-parte against the respondent.
8. During the course of cross examination no definite statement could be given by the respondent regarding the cruelty/harassment perpetrated on her at the instance of the family members of the petitioner.
9. No definite reply also could be given about her assessment of the income of the petitioner. A bald statement was made by the respondent that the petitioner owned three houses in Gurgaon and some property in his native village in Haryana. However, she did not offer any proof of the possession of such properties by the petitioner.
10. The fact of her r
