Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
S. Maheswari - Appellant
Versus
D. Sankaran - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 204 of 2018
Decided on : 27-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. R. Udayakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Sujatha, Advocate.
The judgment established the importance of justifiable grounds for a wife's refusal to live with her husband and the neglect attributable to the husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Divorce - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [O.P.No.2772 of 2009, M.C.No.288 of 2012, O.S.No.332 of 2014] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125(1)(a) and Explanation (b) thereto, Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the grounds for disentitlement of maintenance under Section 125(4). The court emphasized the importance of justifiable grounds for a wife's refusal to live with her husband and the neglect attributable to the husband to maintain his wife. The judgment highlighted the conduct and circumstances of the matrimonial life of the parties in determining neglect or refusal to maintain the wife.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the respondent, alleging neglect and refusal to maintain her. The respondent filed counter-statements stating that the petitioner had left him without reasonable cause and was residing with her father. The trial Court dismissed the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had failed to establish that she was residing in the matrimonial home and had left her husband without any sufficient reason. The court emphasized that the conduct of the petitioner showed her refusal to live with her husband without any valid grounds, disentitling her to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the neglect and refusal to maintain the petitioner, the grounds for disentitlement of maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., and the conduct of the petitioner in refusing to live with her husband without valid grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct and refusal to live with her husband without any sufficient reason disentitled her to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasized the importance of justifiable grounds for a wife's refusal to live with her husband and the neglect attributable to the husband to maintain his wife.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the trial Court's order was upheld, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in M.C.No.288 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Additional Family Court, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as follows:
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 19.06.2005, after divorcing his first wife, and the respondent set up the matrimonial home at No.5/3, Pappathiamman Koil Street, Erukkancherry, Chennai. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent started demanding huge amount as dowry and all of a sudden without any reason, the respondent quarreled with the petitioner and left the matrimonial home and started to live at his sister's house at No.12, Veerakutty Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai. From the date of marriage, she was living in the matrimonial home.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent taking advantage of his own wrong and in order to get rid of the petitioner in some manner, filed O.P.No.2772 of 2009 against the petitioner with false allegation by giving wrong residential address as if the petitioner was residing at No.60, New Forhans Road, Pattalam, Chennai.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent was working in Indian Bank as Clerk at Harbour Branch and was getting monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- and neglected to maintain her. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, apart from his monthly salary, the respondent was owning a house property at No.3/5, Pappathiamman Koil Street, Erukkancherry, Chennai and he was getting total rental income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner was pulling on these hard days of life with tearful eyes and was experiencing great difficulty to maintain herself and she has no means to support her. Hence, she has filed the petition seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.
5. Resisting the petition, the respondent filed counter stating that he never demanded dowry and it was true that he married the petitioner after divorcing his first wife. All that he was looking for was a spouse who would be his companion and share his happiness and sorrows. But unfortunately all that turned into a nightmare due to the conduct of the petitioner who due to her conduct drove him out of his own house. The premises where the petitioner claims that she was living with him is actually the respondent's own house built on land that he had purchased in 1998 and constructed by him before marriage. After driving him out of the matrimonial home, the petitioner continued to occupy it for some time and then locked it and went to her parent's residence. The respondent tried through many ways to sort out the issue, but it was of no avail and finally due to severe cruelty caused by her behaviour, the respondent filed divorce petition.
6. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner was living with her father and continues to live there. After having driven him out of his house, the petitioner claims that he should not show his residence as his permanent address. The respondent denied the monthly earning of Rs.40,000/-. According to the respondent, problems in the marriage due to the conduct of the petitioner have caused him so much anguish that he had missed out on career opportunities. The respondent was not getting monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner was a B.Com. Graduate and has been employed. She has sufficient assets and is wealthy. After ruining his life, the petitioner has now come up with a petition as a counter-blast only to harass him.
7. It is stated that the petitioner's father was employed in Wheels India and she is very much capable of maintaining herself. The petitioner never wanted to live with the respondent and after throwing him out of his own home, refused to live with him without any valid reason. Such being the case, the petit
