ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.
Gaurav Mehta and Anr. – Revisionists
versus
Anamika Chopra and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Criminal Revision No. 4152 of 2023 and
Criminal Revision No. 4452 of 2023
Decided on 6.3.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B(1) – Maintenance – Entitlement – Divorce petition was filed under Section 13B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act by parties seeking divorce with mutual consent – It was agreed by husband and wife that respondent wife will not claim any amount towards maintenance from her husband and custody of minor son shall remain with mother – Divorce petition was decreed on terms and conditions for which both parties were agreed – Respondent wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance as she has already waived off her right to claim maintenance at the time of divorce – Family Court has erred in awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month – Order passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, set aside.(Paras 14, 17, 18 and 19)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
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 judgement. 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:-
“9. That now the following have been agreed upon the between the petitioners interest:
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
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.
A wife who waives her right to maintenance during divorce cannot later claim interim maintenance, especially when living separately by mutual consent.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief to aggri....
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 wife's earning does not preclude her from receiving maintenance; courts must assess the overall financial situation and standard of living.
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.
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.