Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Hemamalini - Petitioner
Vs.
C.M. Suresh - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 772 of 2009
Decided On : 09-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Margabandhu
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Kannadasan
The central legal point established in the judgment is the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife, as determined by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act - 13(1)(i-a)(i-d) on Hindu Marriage Act 1958 - 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) and 13(1)(i-a)(i-d), as well as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also referred to the legal obligations of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, particularly in relation to the wife's entitlement to maintenance and the husband's obligation to provide it.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a legally wedded wife, filed a maintenance application after her divorce petition was dismissed. The trial court erroneously dismissed the application, citing the wife's voluntary departure from the matrimonial home and the belated filing of the maintenance petition. The respondent, the husband, claimed that he was not earning and that the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's failure to pay interim maintenance, his subsequent unsuccessful divorce petitions, and the wife's efforts to claim maintenance from 2002 onwards demonstrated the husband's obligation to maintain his wife. The court presumed the husband's income and directed him to pay maintenance from the date of the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the wife's entitlement to maintenance, the husband's income, and the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife, the wife's efforts to claim maintenance, and the presumption of the husband's income to determine the maintenance amount.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and directing the husband to pay maintenance to the wife from the date of the petition.
1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore made in MC.No.4 of 2008 dated 06.07.2009, dismissing the maintenance application filed by the revision petitioner.
2. It is admitted by both sides that the revision petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The said marriage was held on 24.01.1999 at Sri Ragavendra Kalyana Mandapam, Vellore according to Hindu rites and customs. Since, the marriage is admitted, the respondent/husband is liable to maintain her wife. The wife filed divorce petition, the same was dismissed, after dismissal of the divorce petition, the present maintenance petition was filed, the trial Court ought to have noted the dowry harassment and divorce, are the sufficient cause for claiming maintenance, without considering the said fact, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application, the trial Court further failed to consider that the respondent is earning Rs.9,000/- p.m. and he is liable to pay maintenance. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the trial Court and the allow the revision petition.
3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following citation:-
(i) 1995 CRL.L.J. 3526 - Arana Kar v. Dr. Sarat Kumar Dash alias Nachhi, wherein paragraph 7 of the order which reads it as follows:-
"7. ...... I find that in paragraph 3 of the petition the opposite party has relied on the facts of the un-chastity of wife and in paragraph 6 thereof, he has reiterated the fact that she is living separately and leading an adulterous life. The effect of this is that if this fact is not proved then the wife gets justification for living separate from the husband and also gets grounds fro claiming maintenance in that case. They have not been considered and decided by the Family Court."
(ii) 1996 CRL.LJ. 745 - Durga Shankar v. Smt. Dhapu Bai - Wherein in paragraph 6, the Rajasthan High Court held as follows:-
"6. It is true that adultery cannot be proved by direct evidence and only an interference can be drawn regarding adultery from the attending circumstances. But the person, who alleges that the another party had been living in adultery, has to prove, from the attending circumstances with a clear, cogent and convincing evidence which admits one and only one inference that the other party is living in adultery. If it is proved from the attending circumstances by clear, cogent and convincing evidence then only the evidence, produced by the petitioner-husband, which has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to prove the allegation of adultery against his wife Smt.Dhapu Bai while Smt.Dhapu Bai has been able to prove, from the convincing evidence that she was subjected to cruelty and was forcibly turned out from the house by the husband and her husband, also, levelled wild allegations regarding her character. As the petitioner-husband had levelled allegations impeaching the character of Smt.Dhapu Bai that she was having illicit relations with Prem Shanker and as the applicant has been able to prove the cruel treatment of the husband and turning her out from his house, she had justified reasons to live separately from the husband. The learned judge of the Family Court has therefore, not committed any illegality in allowing the application filed by the applicants regarding the grant of maintenance to them."
(iii) 1997 CRL.LJ. 3981 - Sou. Janabai Pandit Pawar v. Pandit Shamji Pawar and others - it is held in paragraph 2 of the said order which reads as follows :-
"2. .....She could not continue with her husband and she stayed along with her son-in-law, I do not agree with the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. Simply because wife could not make an application for maintenance for a long period will not disentitle her for claiming m
