1. Criminal revision against maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC — earlier dismissal and subsequent divorce decree. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
Chanchlesh Singare – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rashmi Singare – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 6100 Of 2019
Decided On : 17-07-2026
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Res judicata does not bar a second maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC if circumstances change, such as after a divorce. A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance without needing to prove sufficient cause for living separately, as Section 125(4) disqualifications cease to apply upon dissolution of marriage.
Res judicata does not bar a second maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC if circumstances change, such as after a divorce. A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance without needing to prove sufficient cause for living separately, as Section 125(4) disqualifications cease to apply upon dissolution of marriage.
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- effect of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband -- mere passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband does not, by itself, disentitle wife from claiming maintenance -- findings recorded while granting such decree do not operate as absolute bar to grant of maintenance. (2000) 3 SCC 180 and (2025) 3 SCC 33 followed. [Para 10
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- sufficient cause for living separately -- marriage dissolved by decree of divorce -- after dissolution of marriage, disqualifications enumerated u/s. 125(4) of CrPC cease to apply -- divorced wife is not required to establish that she is living separately with sufficient cause -- nor can maintenance be denied on ground that she withdrew herself from society of husband without sufficient reason -- only relevant considerations are whether she is unable to maintain herself and whether former husband, having sufficient means, neglected or refused to maintain her. [Para 11
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- maintainability of application -- decree of divorce passed during pendency of proceedings u/s. 125 -- wife may be denied maintenance for period prior to decree if Court records finding that she was residing separately without sufficient cause -- however, such finding cannot disentitle her from claiming maintenance for period subsequent to decree of divorce -- from date of dissolution of marriage, she acquires statutory status of divorced wife for limited purpose of claiming maintenance u/s. 125 -- her claim thereafter is required to be adjudicated in accordance with principles governing entitlement of divorced wife. [Para 11
(4) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- maintainability of second application -- applicability of principle of res judicata -- principle of res judicata does not bar second application merely because earlier application was dismissed on merits -- second application is maintainable on basis of subsequent events, change in circumstances or fresh cause of action -- principle of res judicata does not apply to proceedings u/s. 125, which are summary in nature, especially in changed circumstances -- application cannot be rejected at threshold merely because earlier application was dismissed for default, dismissed on merits, or rejected on ground that wife was living separately without sufficient cause -- Court is required to afford parties an opportunity of hearing, permit them to adduce evidence regarding subsequent change in circumstances, and determine maintainability and entitlement to maintenance on basis of evidence so recorded -- such determination cannot be made without recording evidence. AIR 1979 SC 362 and (2025) 2 SCC 49 followed. 1994 (I) MPWN 80, 1999 (II) MPWN 28, 2017 CrLJ 1508, M. Cr. C. No. 2439 of 2011 decided on 26.3.2013, Cr. R. No. 1965 of 2018 decided on 13.7.2026 (Jab.), 1989 CrLJ 398 (Bom.), 2005 SCC Online Ker. 62, 2016 Supreme (Cal.) 699, 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199 and 2022 Supreme (Del.) 1186 relied on. [Paras 12, 13 & 17
(5) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- effect of findings recorded in judgment and decree of divorce -- after divorce, disqualification contained in S. 125(4) no longer survives -- claimant is not required to establish that she was living separately with sufficient cause -- she claims maintenance in capacity of divorced wife, not merely as wife -- consequently, findings recorded in decree of divorce, by themselves, do not preclude or govern determination of a subsequent application for maintenance filed after dissolution of marriage. Cr. Rev. P. No. 161 of 2018 decided on 18.8.2022 (Del.) distinguished. [Para 14
(6) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- maintainability of second application -- decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband -- consequently, application for maintenance dismissed on ground that wife is residing separately without sufficient cause -- thereafter, decree of divorce passed in favour of husband -- second application for maintenance allowed by impugned order -- held -- there being change in circumstances, second application for maintenance was maintainable -- no illegality in impugned order allowing second application. [Paras 16 & 18
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & ifr ds i{k esa nkaiR;kf/kdkjksa ds çR;kLFkkiu dh fMØh dk çHkko & ifr ds i{k esa nkaiR;kf/kdkjksa ds çR;kLFkkiu dh fMØh ikfjr gksus ek= ls iRuh] Lo;eso] Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok djus ls fugZfdr ugha gks tkrh & ,slh fMØh çnku djrs le; vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ Hkj.kiks"k.k ds çnku ij vkR;afrd otZu ds :i esa çofrZr ugha gksrsA ¼2000½ 3 ,llhlh 180 rFkk ¼2025½ 3 ,llhlh 33 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & i`Fkd~ fuokl djus ds fy, i;kZIr dkj.k & fookg-foPNsn dh fMØh ls fookg fo?kfVr & fookg ds fo?kVu ds mijkar] naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 125¼4½ ds v/khu ifjxf.kr fujgZrkvksa dk ykxw gksuk lekIr gks tkrk gS & fofPNUu-fookg iRuh }kjk ;g LFkkfir fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha fd og i;kZIr dkj.ko'k i`Fkd~ jg jgh gS & u Hkj.kiks"k.k ls bl vkèkkj ij gh bUdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS fd mlus Lo;a dks ifr ds lkgp;Z ls i;kZIr dkj.k ds fcuk çR;kâr dj fy;k & lqlaxr fopkj.kh; ckrsa dsoy ;g gSa fd D;k og Lo;a dk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa vleFkZ gS] rFkk D;k i;kZIr lk/ku;qä HkwriwoZ ifr us mldk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa mis{kk dh ;k mlls bUdkj fd;kA ¼iSjk 11
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & vkosnu pyus ;ksX; gksuk & èkkjk 125 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh ds yacu ds nkSjku fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh ikfjr & ;fn U;k;ky; ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djrk gS fd iRuh i;kZIr dkj.k ds fcuk i`Fkd~ fuokl dj jgh Fkh rks fMØh ls iwoZ dh vof/k ds fy, mls Hkj.kiks"k.k fn, tkus ls bUdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS & rFkkfi] ,sls fu"d"kZ ls og fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh ds i'pkr~ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok djus ls fugZfdr ugha gks ldrh & fookg ds fo?kVu ds fnukad ls mls /kkjk 125 ds v/khu Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok djus ds lhfer ç;kstukFkZ fofPNUu&fookg iRuh dh dkuwuh çkfLFkfr vftZr gks tkrh gS & rRi'pkr~ mlds nkos dk U;k;fu.kZ;u fofPNUu-fookg iRuh dh gdnkjh fofu;fer djus okys fl)karksa ds vuqlkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA ¼iSjk 11
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & f}rh; vkosnu pyus ;ksX; gksuk & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar ykxw gksuk & iwoZ U;k; ds fl)kar ls f}rh; vkosnu dsoy blfy, oftZr ugha gks tkrk fd iwoZrj vkosnu xq.kkxq.k ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk & f}rh; vkosnu i'pkRorhZ ?kVukvksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ifjorZu vFkok uohu okn gsrqd ds vk/kkj ij pyus ;ksX; gS & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar /kkjk 125 ds vèkhu dk;Zokgh dks] tks laf{kIr ç—fr dh gSa] ykxw ugha gksrk] fo'ks"kr% ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa~ esa & vkosnu vkjaHk esa gh ek= blfy, ukeatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd iwoZrj vkosnu O;frØe esa [kkfjt gqvk Fkk] xq.kkxq.k ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk] vFkok bl vk/kkj ij ukeatwj fd;k x;k Fkk fd iRuh i;kZIr dkj.k ds fcuk i`Fkd~ fuokl dj jgh Fkh & U;k;ky; }kjk i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk] mUgsa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa i'pkRorhZ ifjorZu ds laca/k esa lk{; is'k djus dh vuqefr nh tkuk] rFkk bl çdkj vfHkfyf[kr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu ds pyus ;ksX; gksus dk vkSj Hkj.kiks"k.k dh gdnkjh dk vo/kkj.k fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & ;g vo/kkj.k lk{; vfHkfyf[kr fd, fcuk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,vkbvkj 1979 ,llh 362 rFkk ¼2025½ 2 ,llhlh 49 vuqlfjrA 1994 ¼1½ e- ç- ohDyh uksV~l 80] 1999 ¼2½ e- ç- ohDyh uksV~l 28] 2017 lhvkj,yts 1508] çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 2439 lu~ 2011 fu.khZr fnukad 26-3-2013] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 1965 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 13-7-2026 ¼tc-½] 1989 lhvkj,yts 398 ¼cacbZ½] 2005 ,llhlh v‚uykbu dsjy 62] 2016 lqçhe ¼dy-½ 699] 2023 ykboy‚ ¼byk-½ 199 rFkk 2022 lqçhe ¼fnYyh½ 1186 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12] 13 ,oa 17
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & fookg&foPNsn ds fu.kZ; rFkk fMØh esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"k¨Za dk çHkko & fookg&foPNsn ds mijkar] /kkjk 125¼4½ esa varfoZ"V fujgZrk dk vfLrRo ugha jgrk & nkosnkj }kjk ;g LFkkfir fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha fd og i;kZIr dkj.ko'k i`Fkd~ jg jgh Fkh & og Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok fofPNUu-fookg iRuh dh gSfl;r ls djrh gS] ek= iRuh ds :i esa ugha & ifj.kker%] fookg ds fo?kVu ds mijkar çLrqr fd, x, Hkj.kiks"k.k ds i'pkRorhZ vkosnu dk vo/kkj.k fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"k¨Za ls] Lo;eso- çokfjr ;k fofu;fer ugha gksrkA nkafMd iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Ø- 161 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 18-8-2022 ¼fnYyh½ çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 14
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & f}rh; vkosnu pyus ;ksX; gksuk & ifr ds i{k esa nkaiR;kf/kdkjksa ds çR;kLFkkiu dh fMØh & ifj.kker%] Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k fd iRuh i;kZIr dkj.k ds fcuk i`Fkd~ fuokl dj jgh gS & rRi'pkr~] ifr ds i{k esa fookg-foPNsn dh fMØh ikfjr gqbZ & vkf{kIr vkns'k }kjk Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, f}rh; vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ifjorZu gksus ds dkj.k] Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, f}rh; vkosnu pyus ;ksX; Fkk & f}rh; vkosnu eatwj djus ds vkf{kIr vkns'k esa dksbZ voS/krk ughaA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 18
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Ved Prakash Nema and Ms.Anjali Tiwari
For the Respondent: Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey
For the Petitioner: Shri Ved Prakash Nema and Ms.Anjali Tiwari
For the Respondent: Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey
Table of Contents
2. Husband argued res judicata, restitution decree non-compliance, and divorce decree bar maintenance; wife supported order. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Criminal revision dismissed; impugned order granting maintenance upheld. (Para 19 , 20 )
4. Is a second application under Section 125 CrPC maintainable after dismissal of an earlier application on merits?
Yes, the principle of res judicata does not apply to summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC; a fresh application is maintainable upon change in circumstances or a fresh cause of action. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 17 )
5. Can a divorced wife claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite a decree of divorce?
Yes, under Explanation (b) to Section 125(1), a divorced wife continues to have the status of 'wife' and is entitled to maintenance if unable to maintain herself and not remarried; disqualifications under Section 125(4) cease after divorce. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
6. Does a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and non-compliance automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
No, mere passing of such a decree and non-compliance do not automatically attract the disqualification under Section 125(4); it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Are findings in a civil matrimonial decree binding on proceedings under Section 125 CrPC?
No, findings in civil matrimonial proceedings are not binding on maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, which are independent summary proceedings with a different standard of proof. (Para 14 , 15 )
ORDER :
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/husband challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla, in MJCR No.83/2017, whereby the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent/wife, towards monthly maintenance, from the date of order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that previously also an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent/wife and after hearing both the parties was dismissed on merits by final order dated 27.08.2015 passed in MJC No.699/2014, therefore, instant second application dated 28.03.2017 could not have been allowed being barred by res judicata. He submits that without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Family Court has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order and in allowing the second application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife by awarding the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/-. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita & another v. Vijay Pal @ Mohd. Sabir & another, given in Crl.Rev.P 161/2018 on 18.08.2022.
(ii) He also submits that in the meantime, an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights was also passed on 05.12.2014 in HMA case No.382/2014, on the application filed by petitioner/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the respondent/wife did not come forward to comply with the decree, therefore, it is clear that she is residing separately without there being any sufficient cause and this was sufficient to dismiss the second application also, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
(iii) He also submits that thereafter, a bi-parte judgment and decree of divorce was also passed in favour of the petitioner/husband on 08.03.2017 in HMA Case No.3000248/2015 instituted by the petitioner/husband on 03.12.2015 and in presence of the decree of divorce dtd.08.03.2017, the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance on the second application filed on 28.03.2017. With these submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputed facts of the case are that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 01.05.2014 and first application dtd.01.11.2014 filed by the respondent/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., was dismissed by the Family Court by holding that it is the respondent/wife who is residing separately without there being any sufficient cause. It is apparent that prior to filing first application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 01.11.2014, the petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 25.09.2014, which was allowed vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 05.12.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 03.12.2015, which was also allowed by passing decree of divorce on 08.03.2017 in favour of the petitioner/husband. Second application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent/wife after the decree of divorce i.e. on 28.03.2017, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 23.10.2019 by awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent/wife.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, two questions arise for consideration in the present case, which are as follows:
(i) Whether a second application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable when the earlier application was dismissed on merits, and whether the findings recorded in the earlier proceedings or the order dismissing the first application would operate as res judicata?
