Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
Md. Shahabuddin @ Mithu – Appellant
Versus
Sazia Khatoon – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 512 of 2020
Decided on : 12-02-2024
[MAINTENANCE] - [CRIMINAL REVISION] - [Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.] - [The court discussed Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., which provides for maintenance to wives and children. It emphasized that a wife can claim maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself and her husband has sufficient means. The court interpreted the provisions to affirm that the husband is obligated to maintain his first wife even after a second marriage, and that the refusal of the wife to live with the husband due to the presence of a second wife is justified. The court upheld the lower court's decision to grant maintenance based on the husband's income and the wife's financial needs.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a Family Court judgment that ordered him to pay maintenance to his wife and son. The wife claimed she was subjected to cruelty and demanded maintenance after being ousted from the matrimonial home. The husband contended that the maintenance claim was baseless and that he was unable to pay due to his limited income.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife was entitled to maintenance as she had no independent income and the husband had sufficient means. The court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that the husband's second marriage did not absolve him of his duty to maintain his first wife and child.
Issues: Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. despite the husband's second marriage and claims of insufficient income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a husband is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and that the presence of a second wife does not negate this obligation. The court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of maintenance laws to ensure social justice.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2020 was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order for the husband to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to his son until the son attained majority.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
This Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 10.02.2020 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance No. 33 of 2016 by which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by the opposite party no. 1 has been allowed and direction has been given to the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1- wife namely Sazia Khatton as maintenance from the date of filing of an application and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2-son namely Md. Oais till October, 2018 (from the date of application i.e. 28.01.2016 to October, 2018 at the age of attaining majority. Petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the Opposite Party no. 1 as Litigation Cost.
2. The case of the opposite party no. 1-wife, in brief, is that she is legally married wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 24.10.1999 according to Muslim Rites and Customs and after marriage, they lived together at her matrimonial home as husband and wife for some days happily and on 30/10/2000, she blessed with one male child namely Md. Oais and after the birth of her son, she was tortured by the respondent and his family members and demanded Rs. 20.00 lac as dowry, then the petitioner replied that her father had spent Rs. 16.00 lac in her marriage and at present they are unable to give additional dowry, but due to non- fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to cruelty mentally and physically. The father and uncle of petitioner tried to pacify the matter and give Rs. 2.00 lac, then the respondent and his family members took the petitioner happy for some days, but again she and her son was tortured by them. It has further been alleged that lastly, the respondent solemnised 2 marriage in the year 2013 with one Jayada Navi @ Bampi and the petitioner was subjected to torture by various means and lastly, October 2015, the petitioner sent her to Mayke and threatened to give Rs. 20.00 lac dowry. It is stated that the petitioner has no source of income and the study of the son of petitioner has stopped due to money. It has been stated that respondent had a Shoe Factory and in New Market, he had two show-room of Sandal and besides this, the father of respondent have a Fruit Market and they earn Rs. 3.00 lac per month and he had two building situated at Kolkata worth Rs. 100.00 lac. However, the Petitioner claimed Rs. 50,000/- per month for herself and her child as maintenance against respondent.
3. The case of the husband-petitioner, in brief, by filing Show Cause that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner no-1 and their marriage was solemnised on 24/10/1999 according to Muslim rites and customs and there was no demand of any dowry and it is also admitted that soon after the inception of marriage, the petitioner attitude towards her marital obligation as a wife was not proper and for which the atmosphere of the house of the respondent was always disturbing. It has further been stated that no logical explanation has been given for the delay in filing the instant complaint, which occurred approximately 18 years ago and hence the petitioner no-1 has purposely tried to build up a false cause of action without any reasonable and cogent grounds. It has further been stated that respondent was all along a responsible husband who took utmost care of both the applicant- O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 in every circumstances which will be evident from the fact that the petitioner no-2 was admitted in one of the best English Medium School in Kolkata Seventh Day Adventist Sr. Sec. School and even after initiation of the instant matter, the respondent kept on paying the school fees of his son and the demand of dowry is totally false and fabricated and she was not subjected to any cruelty. It has further
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his first wife and children, even after a second marriage, and a wife's refusal to live with her husband due to the presence of a second wife is justified u....
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.
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.
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC is a statutory duty, and the assessment of maintenance must consider the husband's income and the wife's financial needs....
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of financial incapacity must be supported by credible evidence; failure to do so can result in t....
A wife is entitled to maintenance even if she has her own income, ensuring her standard of living is maintained according to her husband's financial status.
The judgment reinforces the principle that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, reflecting her needs and his financial capacity.
The right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a personal right that can be claimed by legal heirs after the death of the entitled party, and the obligation to pay maintenance is based on the hus....
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
