A false statement in unrelated proceedings does not automatically justify the denial of maintenance under Section 488 J&K Cr.P.C.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER

28.07.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 04.04.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chadoora (hereafter referred to as “the trial Magistrate”), whereby her petition under Section 488 J&K Cr.P.C has been dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the trial court record.

3. It appears that the petitioner claiming herself to be wife of the respondent, filed petition under Section 488 J&K Cr.P.C, seeking maintenance against him. In the petition, the petitioner has alleged that behavior of the respondent towards her has been cruel and that she has been given ruthless beating by him several times. She has further contended that the inhumane behavior of the respondent compelled her to take shelter in her parental home and the respondent totally neglected her, as a result of which, she is unable to maintain herself.

4. It seems that the respondent has contested the petition by filing objections thereto. In the objections the respondent has contended that behavior of the petitioner has been immoral, unethical and criminal and that she did not change her behavior, which prompted him to divorce her in the month of March, 2017. It has been submitted that the petitioner was arrested at Jammu Bus Stand in connection with an FIR for offences under Section 08/15/20 of NDPS Act and charas as well as poppy straw was recovered from her possession. It has been further submitted that the respondent has already filed a civil suit against the petitioner and an order has been passed by the Civil Court restraining the petitioner from making any kind of interference into the personal life of the respondent and his two minor children. It seems that the respondent further contended before the learned trial Magistrate that the petitioner while seeking bail in the aforesaid criminal case, pleaded before the Court that she is a widow and has to lookafter her two minor children.

5. The trial Court record shows that the parties have examined the witnesses in support of their respective cases and after completion of trial the case was set down for final hearing.

6. Vide the impugned order the learned trial Magistrate has dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has made a false statement before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu while applying for bail, and as such, she was disentitled to get any relief against the respondent owing to her conduct.

7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of law. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to meet the contention that she has made a false statement before the Court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. It has been also contended that even if the petitioner had made any such statement before the Court of 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, the application of the petitioner could not have been dismissed on this ground alone.

8. Section 488 of J&K Cr.P.C, which provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents, lays down that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, the Magistrate upon proof of such neglect or refusal, has jurisdiction to order such person to make a monthly maintenance of his wife at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit.

9. Thus, for seeking the relief of maintenance under Section 488 of J&K Cr.P.C, a wife has to show that her husband is neglecting her or has refused to mai