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

2017 Supreme(Guj) 961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Paresh Chaturbhai Patel – Appellant
Vs.
Kokilaben Manilal Patel and Ors. – Respondents
Special Criminal Application (For Maintenance) No. 9318 of 2016
Decided On : 05-05-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.I. Nanavati, Senior Advocate and V.D. Nanavati, Advocate
For the Respondent:Keyur A. Vyas and Archit P. Jani, Advocates

Important Point:a) Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (Act I of 1974). which is in essence not punitive but preventive rather than remedial, has been enacted with the object of enabling the deserted wives, helpless and deserted children and destitute parents, to secure the much needed relief, so as to prevent vagrancy.b) Even after divorce granted in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion, the wife is still entitled for the allowance of maintenance

Headnote:Constitution of India---Article 227--- Indian Penal Code,1860---Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506(2) read with 114---Bombay Police Act, 1951--- Section 135--- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955--- Section 13--- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956--- Section 18--- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--- Section 125--- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005---divorce granted on account of desertation of wife---husband petitioner praying to be relieved of providing for maintenance---four issues:-(i) Is the divorced wife entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite the fact that a decree of divorce was passed by the competent Court at the instance of the husband on the ground of the wife deserting the husband without any justifiable reason?---(ii) Can the statutory compassion in favour of the woman in distress in a dissolved marriage and the legislative anxiety and the concern to prevent vagrancy against the woman persuade the Courts to bring such a woman in a dissolved marriage within the sweep of the definition of deemed wife in Explanation (b) to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.---(iii) Whether the term "wife" in Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. includes a divorced wife?---(iv) Can the changing norms in a society evidenced by the subsequent statutory instruments persuade the Courts to expand the entrenched concepts in society?---even after divorce granted in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion, the wife is still entitled for the allowance of maintenance --- Sec. 125(1)(b). Cr.P.C. must receive a liberal and expansive interpretation to include a destitute woman in distress whose marriage has been annulled by a decree under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act--- the object, purpose and rationale of the deemed inclusion of certain non-wives in the category of wives by Explanation (b) it would be impermissible to deny the benefit of the legislative compassion to wives whose marriages have been annulled by Court at the volition of parties, on grounds available under Sec. 12.---A husband who has obtained divorce on the ground of moral contumaciousness of his wife is also liable to pay maintenance to his divorced wife if she is unable to maintain herself and he has sufficient means--- As in the case of marriage dissolved under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whatever be the ground of annulment, the wife continues to be a deemed wife under Explanation (b).---"the wife" under Explanation (b) must include any woman whose marriage has been brought to severance by acts of spouses-including a decree passed by Court at their instance under Sec.12 or Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The realistic acceptance of the fact that the wife in an annulled marriage cannot, in fact, be placed by law to her position of maidenhood/spinster ship prior to marriage demands and warrants such an expansive interpretation of the expression "wife" in Explanation (b). The fact that consequences of an annulment are not declared in the Hindu Marriage Act specifically and the fact that for the purpose of Sees.16, 25 and 15 the law realistically accepts that such marriage cannot be ignored, overlooked or forgotten and has to be equated to a marriage dissolved under Sec.13 does also help us to accept the wider meaning for the expression "wife" in Explanation (b). The fact that under the personal law applicable to the parties, there is a liability for the husband in an annulled marriage to pay permanent alimony and maintenance to the wife under certain circumstances does also embolden us to include the wife in an annulled marriage also within the ambit of a deemed wife under Explanation (b)---"wife" under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. would not include a divorced wife

       Result: Application Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed for the following relief's:

"15(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present application.

(b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 794/2009 pending before the 3rd Additional Civil Judge JMFC Mehsana and the criminal case before Gandhinagar Court.

(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to direct 3rd Additional Civil Judge, JMFC Mehsana to conclude trial and final hearing of Criminal Misc. Application No. 794/2009 expeditiously.

(d) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash and set aside the order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 158 of 2010 dated 25.06.2016 and also the order passed by the Ld. JMFC Mehsana upon Exh. 22 in CRMA 794 of 2009 dated 29.11.2010.

(e) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may pleased be granted"

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under:

2.1 The applicant herein got married to the respondent No. 1 in the year 1989. In the wedlock, a son named "Kaushal" was born on 6th March 1990. The applicant herein has a physical disability upto 75%. The matrimonial life of the parties got disturbed on account of serious disputes. The disputes went to the extent of the wife filing a police complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In the said prosecution, the applicant came be convicted and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. The applicant preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2000, which came to be allowed by the Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 31st January 2002.

2.2 It also appears from the materials on record that the respondent No. 1 filed a Hindu Marriage Petition No. 104 of 1999 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana, for a decree of judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act. The said Hindu Marriage Petition, ultimately, was withdrawn by the respondent No. 1 by filing a pursis dated 24th April 2004. It was withdrawn stating that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the obligations.

2.3 It also appears that the respondent No. 1 was receiving Rs. 2,300/- per month towards maintenance under the civil law and Rs. 500/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.4 The respondent No. 1 also filed a Special Civil Suit being No. 402 of 2000 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act and prayed for maintenance under Section 18 of the said Act. The Court concerned awarded Rs. 700/- per month towards the maintenance. It was brought to the notice of the Court concerned by the applicant that the respondent No. 1 had instituted the Hindu Marriage Petition seeking judicial separation and had also preferred an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 1 withdrew the Special Civil Suit No. 402 of 2000 unconditionally.

2.5 In the circumstances, which was prevailing, the applicant filed a Hindu Marriage Petition bearing No. 113 of 2001 for dissolution of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Petition No. 113 of 2001 came to be filed by the applicant herein under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act substantially on the ground of desertion. The said petition filed by the applicant herein came to be allowed by the 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana vide the judgment and decree dated 29th April 2006. The respondent No. 1 challenged the judgment and decree by filing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 37


















































































































































































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