Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ.
Sh Pradeep Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Smt Deepika Sharma - Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 417/2021, CRL.M.A. 19829/2021 & CRL. M.A.86/2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022
maintenance - matrimonial discord - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/ 401, Section 482 - CC No. 6834/2016 - DV Act - IPC - adultery - desertion - employment - maintenance order challenged - impugned order upheld
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against the maintenance order passed by the Family Court. The parties were involved in matrimonial discord, leading to multiple criminal and civil cases, complaints, and FIRs. The petitioner challenged the maintenance order on grounds of the respondent's capability to maintain herself, desertion, adultery, and cruelty. The respondent opposed the petition, citing the petitioner's increased salary and lack of merit in the challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and established that the husband's duty to provide maintenance to the wife exists unless exceptions are proven. The court found that the grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion did not disentitle the wife from maintenance. The petitioner failed to establish continuous and repeated acts of adultery to disqualify the respondent from maintenance. The court also noted that the petitioner's plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty contradicted his claim of desertion by the respondent. Additionally, the petitioner could not prove the respondent's continued employment and sufficient means to maintain herself.
Issues: Matrimonial discord, maintenance order challenge, adultery, desertion, employment capability
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the maintenance order, emphasizing the husband's duty to provide maintenance to the wife unless exceptions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are proven. The court found that grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion did not disentitle the wife from maintenance. Continuous and repeated acts of adultery were required to disqualify the wife from maintenance. The petitioner's plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty contradicted his claim of desertion by the respondent. The petitioner failed to prove the respondent's continued employment and sufficient means to maintain herself.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the impugned maintenance order, as there was no illegality, impropriety, or error apparent on record.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397/ 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") seeking setting aside of order and judgment dated 31st July, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 6834/2016 (MTNo.800/2014).
BRIEF BACKGROUND
2. The instant petition has been filed in the aftermath of matrimonial discord between the parties and the brief background of the same is discussed hereinunder:-
a. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 9th April, 2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and two children were born out of the wedlock.
b. Due to several disputes amongst the parties, several criminal and civil cases, complaints and FIRs were filed by both the parties against each other. The following table indicates some of the cases filed and the fate during the course of the disposal.
| Sr. No. | Case No. | Filed By | Purpose for Filing | Present status |
| 1. | C.C. No. 6834/2016. | Respondent | For maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Allowed by impugned order dated 31.07.2020. |
| 2. | In C. C. No. 6834/2016 | Respondent | For interim maintenance. | Rejected vide order 15.05.2012 however, granted Rs. 6,000/- to minor son. |
| 3. | C.C. No. 60/2010. | Respondent | Filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'DV Act') alleging that the petitioner is suffering from Venereal Disease. | Withdrawn on 14.07.2010. |
| 4. | Matrimonial Case No. 11/2011. | Petitioner | For decree of divorce. | On 01.03.2017, the marriage stood annulled by decree of divorce. |
| 5. | N/A | Respondent & her mother | Complaint of theft of jewellery against the petitioner. | As per the statement of the mother the jewellery was in her possession. |
| 6. | Complaint before Additional Director General BSF | Respondent | N/A | Resolved by an undertaking of the respondent. |
| 7. | F.I.R No. 157/06 | Respondent | Under Section 498A/406/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") | The Superintendent filed closure report and recommended for filing case under Section 211 of IPC against the respondent. |
| 8. | Civil Misc. Case No. 04/2007 | Petitioner | For dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. | Withdrawn in order to give his marriage a second chance. |
| 9. | C.C. 312/2017 | Respondent | Filed under Section 18/19/22 of the DV Act as a counter for Civil Misc. Case No. 04/2007 (filed by the petitioner) | Withdrawn |
| 10. | C.C. No. 60/2010 | Respondent | Filed under Section 18/19/20/21 of the DV Act. | Dismissed as withdrawn. Vide order dated 14.07.2010. |
| 11. | FIR 271/2010 | Petitioner | For theft of his wallet. (Rs. 1,10,000/- were withdrawn by the respondent as shown in the CCTV footage) | Crl. Trial No.1769/2010 was registered under Section 380, 417 and 419 IPC and the respondent was granted bail vide order dated 16.07.2010. Respondent was acquitted. |
| 12. | Complaint No. PK/PF/Misc./SHQ. AZL/2011/04 | Petitioner | Complaint before Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl filed against the respondent as she thrashed her daughter. | Custody of daughter was granted to the petitioner as the respondent was inflicting emotional mental and physical abuse. |
| 13. | C.C. No. 04/2012 | Respondent | Against the petitioner. His father and brother under Section 18/19/20/21 of D.V. Act. | Dismissed by Metropolitan Magistrate on account of nonappearance and non-prosecution of the case of respondent. |
| 14. | FIR No. 107/2012 | Respondent | Under Section 406/ 498A IPC | Vide order dated 02.09.2016 the petitioner was discharged. |
| 15. | Police Complaint | filed by Master Puskar against the respondent. | To leave the custody of respondent. | Custody was gi |
The duty of a husband to provide maintenance to the wife exists unless exceptions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are proven. Grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion do not disentitle the wife f....
The court emphasized the welfare nature of maintenance laws and the need to prevent destitution, holding that grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion did not disentitle the respondent from receiv....
The court ruled that a wife disqualified from maintenance under Section 125 due to adultery cannot claim maintenance post-divorce if evidence of past conduct supports the claim.
The judgment established that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C aim to prevent destitution of a deserted wife and must be considered in light of the welfare of the children. It also clarified that....
Proper consideration of the issue of adultery is essential in determining a wife's entitlement to maintenance under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.
The burden of proof lies with the husband to establish continuous adultery to deny maintenance; isolated incidents are insufficient.
Point of law: Maintenance – Adultery - When piea of adultery is taken it is a serious defence of the respondent. If he failed to prove that particular aspect, then it amounts to character assassinati....
Important points:The reason that distinguishes is that, in case of a deserted and neglected wife, in cases of living in adultery, the lady would be maintained by the adulterer and need not have to wo....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
