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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Irshadul Haque - Petitioner
Versus
Ateka Sowaid and Ors. - Opp. Parties
Cr. Revision No. 607 of 2020
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. B. Lal, Adv.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahato, A.P.P., Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
A wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if she is living separately from her husband without sufficient reason, while the obligation to maintain children remains absolute.

Headnote:

[MAINTENANCE] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE] - [Section 125] - [The court discussed Section 125 of the CrPC, which mandates maintenance for a wife and children. It interpreted the provision to deny maintenance to a wife living separately without sufficient reason, as per Section 125(4). The court emphasized the husband's obligation to maintain his children, affirming the maintenance awarded to them while setting aside the wife's maintenance due to her refusal to live with him.]

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Revision No. 607 of 2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance No. 408 of 2017 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been allowed and direction has been given to the husband- petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1- wife namely Ateka Sowaid as maintenance till she is alive and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2-son namely Mobashirul Haque till he attains his age of majority and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3-daugher namely Aiman Fatima till she is wilfully married or gainfully employed and the maintenance amount will be payable from the date of order. Petitioner has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner as Litigation Cost.

2. The opposite party nos. 1 to 3 has filed maintenance case before the learned Court below on 12.09.2017 under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. stating therein that the opposite party no. 1 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 28.12.2005 at Dhanbad as per the Muslim Rites and Customs on 28.12.2005 at Dhanbad and they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, the couple has been blessed with opposite party no.2, Mobashirul Haque and opposite party no. 3, Aiman Fatima. However, she has been subjected to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry by the petitioner and she along with her children had been thrown out from the matrimonial house by her husband-the petitioner on 07.07.2017. Her husband has wilfully failed and neglected to maintained or pay maintenance to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 despite having sufficient means whereas the wife-opposite party no. 1 has no source of income to maintain herself and her children and she is presently dependent upon her parents, who have their own expenses and may not be in position to support them for long period. She further stated that her husband is an Engineer in Railway and earning Rs. 80,000/- per month and hence, she may be paid maintenance Rs. 20,000/- per month and be paid Rs. 10,000/- per month each towards maintenance to opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 totalling Rs. 40,000/- per month.

3. The case of the husband-petitioner, in brief, is that the maintenance case filed by his wife is not maintainable. It has been stated that the marriage took place at Bhagalpur (Bihar), but not in Dhanbad between the parties. However, after marriage, he along with his wife lived for around two years in the house of his brother, then, he has taken the house on rent and lived with the opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife for around three (3) years at Ramjan Manzil, Naya Bazar. Thereafter, the petitioner had purchased a piece of land in the name of his wife i.e. opposite party no. 1 namely Ateka Sowaid at City Colony within Bhuli Police Station and had made expenses from his own money and after taking loan from his brother. Thereafter, he got constructed a house in city colony, has taken a house on rent in city colony and started living with his wife and house was constructed around three years and for which he had taken loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- from his three brothers, which was not paid by him. However, after birth of her daughter, behaviour of his wife changed and she has refused to establish physical relationship with him and has started living separately and still due to change in nature and change of time, the petitioner continued to live with his wife and children, but the opposite party no.1-wife started demanding divorce and he made his children distant from the petitioner. He further stated that the applicant i.e. the wife is an open minded lady and she has been found roaming with young age persons and have seen with several pe

            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