Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Kirti Bhushan Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 707 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Aditya Singh.
For the Respondents: M.A. Khan, Vipul Painuli, Navneet Kaushik.
IMPORTANT POINT
A wife's refusal of sexual relations due to injury does not constitute mental cruelty, affirming her right to maintenance.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The court interpreted Section 125 to affirm the right to maintenance for a wife and child, emphasizing the husband's obligation despite allegations of cruelty.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed for maintenance under Section 125, claiming harassment and forced sexual acts by the revisionist, leading to physical and mental trauma. The revisionist denied the allegations, asserting the respondent's prior health issues and her refusal of intimacy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent's claims credible, noting the revisionist's failure to provide evidence supporting his defense. The court emphasized that the refusal of intercourse due to injury does not constitute mental cruelty.
Issues: Whether the respondent's refusal of sexual relations constituted mental cruelty and whether the revisionist was liable for maintenance under Section 125.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of intercourse due to valid reasons, such as injury, does not amount to mental cruelty, thus affirming the right to maintenance for the wife and child.
Result: The revision is dismissed, upholding the maintenance order.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. The challenge in this revision is made to the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2023, passed in Case No. 50 of 2017, Smt. Gargi Kar and Another vs. Kirti Bhushan Mishra, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the case”), by the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent no. 3, as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code filed by the respondent no. 2 (“the wife”) and the respondent no. 3 (“the son”) against the revisionist. Briefly stated, according to it, the revisionist and the respondent no. 2 were married on 08.12.2010. But, after marriage, the respondent no. 2 was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry. The revisionist would consider the respondent no. 2 as material and would commit sexual intercourse against the order of nature with her which had adverse effect on her health. The revisionist had no mercy on the respondent no. 2. He continued anal sex with the respondent no. 2 by force and by beating her. Not only this, the revisionist would show obscene videos to their child, so that the respondent no. 2 would succumb to his demands. He would behave in a very cruel manner. He would throw the glass. He would hit the doors with iron rod. He would urinate at the doors. When the parties were in Roorkee, atrocities and harassment continued. The revisionist did not pay the school fee of the child. The respondent no. 2 has been staying in the Government accommodation allotted to the revisionist.
4. It has been the case of the respondent no. 2 that due to repeated anal sex done by the revisionist on her, she was admitted in a hospital at Balangir. Thereafter, she was admitted in FORTIS Jindal Hospital, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, where surgery was suggested, but was not conducted by the revisionist. In Roorkee also, the respondent no. 2 was treated with her injuries in one Nursing Home. All the documents were kept by the revisionist.
5. According to the respondent no. 2, on 16.09.2016, at about 10:00 PM, the revisionist visited her, did maar peet with her and tried to forcibly establish physical relations with her. The respondent no. 2 raised alarm. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 left the place. Since then, he has not been maintaining the respondent nos.2 and 3. It is stated by the respondent no. 2 in her application that the revisionist earns Rs. 97,254/- per month whereas she is not able to maintain herself.
6. The revisionist did file objections to it and denied all the allegations. It has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent no. 2 is a highly educated woman. After marriage, the revisionist tried his best to entertain her and has taken her for honeymoon and they travelled at various places in India and abroad. At the time of marriage, neither dowry was demanded nor was it given. The revisionist has written that, in fact, the respondent no. 2 had problems of constipation and piles before marriage and she also used to go to the doctor for her treatment and after marriage, she also got her treatment in Germany. She has made false story.
7. According to the revisionist the behavior of the respondent no. 2 was so abusing and abnormal and she had asked the revisionist to leave her house. Finally, according to the revisionist, he was thrown out from the house by the respondent no. 2, threatening him for putting behind bars by implicating him in false cases and deserted him.
8. It has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent no. 2 is a teacher and gets Rs. 25,000/- per month salary and she also gets interest from her deposited amount.
9. After hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order, the application under Section 125 of the Code, f
