Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20551
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
P.GAJALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
MR.M.RAMACHANDIRAN – Respondent
Husbands are legally obligated to maintain their wives unless they can prove grounds such as the wife's ability to self-maintain or her living in adultery with credible evidence.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Criminal Procedure Code - 125 Cr.P.C. - Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. focuses on the husband's duty to maintain his wife and children; courts must assess claims of adultery based on credible evidence, which influenced the dismissal of the maintenance case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/wife seeks to quash the trial court's order dismissing her maintenance claim, asserting that her husband and his family harassed her and that the husband falsely alleged she was living in adultery without sufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the elder son believable and concluded there was a basis for the trial court's decision to dismiss the maintenance claim, as the wife was not shown to have sufficient means to maintain herself.
Issues: Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the maintenance application based on the allegations of adultery made by the husband.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can only be dismissed if the wife is capable of maintaining herself or if she is living in adultery, which requires substantial proof.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking quashment of the order passed in FCMC.No.3 of 2021 dated 30.01.2024 on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the marriage between the petitioner/wife and and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 09.02.2007 and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two male child. Since the respondent and his family members continuously harassed the petitioner, they got separated and as the respondent refused to maintain the petitioner, she filed a maintenance case u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-. After adjudication, the trial court, vide impugned order dismissed the maintenance case filed by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/wife.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, right from the date of marriage, the respondent/husband and his parents continuously harrased the petitioner/wife and the petitioner and the respondent lived separately most of the time and the children were always under the care and custody of the respondent/husband and they hardly lived along with the petitioner. Thereby, the elder son, who was examined as RW2 before the trial court, based on the instigation of the respondent/husband, falsely deposed that he saw the petitioner in a compromising position with some other person. Further, apart from the deposition of the RW2, no other documentary evidence has been produced by the respondent before the trial court to establish that the petitioner is living in adultery and without any proper evidence, making such a false and baseless allegation as against the petitioner is wholly unsustainable. However, the trial court, without considering any of the said contentions, merely based on the deposition of the elder son of the petitioner, dismissed the maintenance case filed by the petitioner, which cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
4. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Though the respondent is not represented, however, in view of the fact that the order, which this Court proposes to pass does not in any way affect the respondent, this Court proceeds with the appreciation of the case of the petitioner on merits.
6. There is no dispute about the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent is the wife and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. It is to be pointed out that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child and the comforts, which were available to the spouse and child should not be lost due to the friction between the warring parties. Only to that end, Section 125 Cr.P.C. was brought into the statute. In such a backdrop, it becomes the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child.
7. The grounds on which maintenance can be rejected to the wife can be only on the ground that wife is able to maintain herself and she has the requisite means to maintain herself and that she is living in adultery and where the person, who offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to live with him, only on such of those grounds, maintenance could be negatived against the wife.
8. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner/husband that his wife has sufficient means to maintain herself by her earnings or that he is ready to maintain her if she comes and lives with him, but that, his wife is refusing to unite with him. The major contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is living in adultery and in order to establish the same, he examined his elder son as RW2, aged about 14 years at the relevant point of time, who clearly deposed before the trial court that, on 18.06.2021 at about 11 pm., when he woke u
