IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.
Gaurav Mehta - Revisionist
Versus
Anamika Chopra – Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No.4152 of 2023 & Criminal Revision No.4452 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2024
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B(1) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Interim maintenance - The Family Court granted Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, which was challenged by the husband on grounds of prior waiver of maintenance rights during divorce proceedings. The court emphasized that the wife had agreed not to claim maintenance at the time of divorce, thus rendering the claim for interim maintenance untenable. (Paras 11, 17, 18)
(B) Waiver of Maintenance - The court reiterated that a wife who waives her right to maintenance at the time of divorce cannot later claim it, especially when living separately by mutual consent. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The parties were married on 27.02.2004 and divorced by mutual consent in 2007, with the wife agreeing not to claim maintenance. After several years, the wife sought interim maintenance, citing financial hardship.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the wife had waived her right to maintenance and was not entitled to interim maintenance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the wife could claim maintenance after waiving her rights during the divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the waiver of maintenance rights during divorce is binding, and the wife cannot claim maintenance subsequently.
Result: The husband's revision was allowed, and the Family Court's order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.
The criminal revision No.4152 of 2023 has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 01.07.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.167 of 2020 (Anamika Chopra Vs. Gaurav Mehta) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which learned Family Court has granted Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.
2. The criminal revision No.4452 of 2023 has been filed by the revisionist-wife against the order dated 01.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.167 of 2020 (Anamika Chopra Vs. Gaurav Mehta) for enhancement of interim maintenance granted by the learned Family Court.
3. Since both the aforesaid criminal revisions have been filed against the same impugned order dated 01.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, the same are being decided by common judgment. Criminal Revision No.4152 of 2023 is leading criminal revision.
4. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the revisionist-husband and Ms.Anamika Chopra (wife) in person. Perused the record.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of revisionist Gaurav Mehta was solemnized with respondent Anamika Chopra on 27.02.2004 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. One son namely, Abhimanyu Mehta was born on 27.12.204 out of their wedlock. The parties were resided together as husband and wife and lead matrimonial life peacefully till 16.08.2006 and thereafter due to differences between the parties they lived separately to each other.
6. Both the parties with mutual consent have filed divorce petition under Section 13B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, New Delhi, which was registered as Divorce Petition No.483 of 2007. The statements of husband and wife were recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 20.08.2007. It was agreed between the parties that they had voluntarily filed petition for divorce without any pressure and the respondent-wife was agreed that she never claimed stridhan, maintenance or alimony from her husband in future. The relevant terms and conditions of divorce petition as mentioned in para 9 are quoted hereinbelow:-
A. .......
B. .......
C. The Petitioner No.2 does not owe any amount or sum of money, to the Petitioner No.1 in the form of Stridhan. The Petitioner No.1 has agreed that no moveable property of any sort/kind is in the possession of the Petitioner No.2 or his family members which belongs to the Petitioner No.1 either by Stridhan or otherwise.
D. The Petitioner No.1 agrees that the Petitioner No.1 shall not claim any amount of money by way of maintenance, compensation, damages etc. (Past, Present and Future) from the petitioner No.2.
E. Both the petitioners submit that they have no grievance against each other or their family members. That no criminal case is pending against either petitioner or their family members, and both the petitioners undertake not to initiate any proceeding against each other, either under the criminal law or Civil law or litigate with them in this regard even in future.
F. ...........
G. That son of the petitioners Master Abhimanyu Mehta shall remain in the custody of the petitioner No.1 till he attains the age of majority, whereafter it shall be his sole discretion. It has been agreed between the petitioners that the Petitioner No.1 shall remain the Legal/natural Guardian of Master Abhimanyu Mehta, which the petitioner No.2 undertakes not to challenge or dispute.
H. That the petitioner No.2 shall have the visitation rights to visit and meet Master Abhimanyu Mehta, once a month and in addition to that the petitioner No.1 shall be free to visit and meet him on special occasions i.e. his birthday or on the festivals such as Holi, Deepawali, Lori etc.
I. The petitioner No.2 shal
Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others 2004(8) Supreme 525
A wife who waives her right to maintenance during divorce cannot later claim interim maintenance, especially when living separately by mutual consent.
Maintenance – Wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance when she has already waived off her right to claim maintenance at the time of divorce.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite the divorce decree and permanent alimony awarded under the Hindu Marri....
A husband must ensure his wife’s financial support and maintain her standard of living unless he proves his inability to earn, as emphasized under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act.
A wife must establish a prima facie case of domestic violence to be entitled to interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, considering both parties' financial statuses.
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., ensuring no financial hardship due to marital dissolution without just cause.
A wife's earning does not preclude her from receiving maintenance; courts must assess the overall financial situation and standard of living.
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must reflect the financial status of the husband and the needs of the wife, ensuring adequate support for her living expenses.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.