Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.Victoria Gowri, J
Karthiyayini – Appellant
Versus
Selavamari – Respondent
CRL RC(MD)No.221 of 2025 | CRL MP(MD)No.2329 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.M.Arunkumaar
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Ganesan
Wives are entitled to maintenance unless evidence proves sufficient cause for refusal to live with the husband; reliance on unfair procedures undermines just results.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 and related case law - Maintenance proceedings - The Family Court dismissed the wife’s maintenance claim citing refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause; key issues involve procedural fairness and the nature of separate residence - Court found that sufficient reasoning was not provided for dismissing maintenance based on an unverified divorce claim and that the wife's concerns about living conditions were valid. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 10)
(B) Maintenance determination principles - Courts must ensure fairness, considering both parties’ financial disclosures and providing interim relief where warranted - Court outlined responsibilities of the husband and the standards for determining entitlement and amount of maintenance, emphasizing humanitarian purposes of Section 125. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The marriage took place on 14.06.2017, followed by issues concerning dowry demands and living conditions leading to a maintenance challenge on the grounds of the wife’s refusal to live with the husband.
Findings of Court:
Wife entitled to maintenance affirmed, and procedural deficiencies in lower court's handling of evidence noted.
Issues: The main questions included whether the Family Court correctly applied Section 125, the effects of an alleged divorce, and reliance on unverified documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that maintenance claims must be adjudicated with regard to fair procedures and proper verification of claims, ensuring just treatment of wives under the law.
Result: Criminal Revision allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background information on marriage and disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. key points of contention surrounding maintenance and living conditions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. governing principles of maintenance under section 125. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's rational findings regarding procedural fairness. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final conclusions and directives regarding maintenance. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER
The revision arises from proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C .,1973, (now pari materia Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by repeal and saving) seeking maintenance by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband, a Junior Engineer (Military Engineering Services). The learned Family Court, by order dated 13.12.2024 in M.C. No. 71 of 2019, dismissed the claim holding that the petitioner had, without sufficient cause, refused to live with the respondent and was, therefore, disentitled to maintenance. The wife challenges the said decision.
2. Facts:
The marriage is an arranged one, solemnised on 14.06.2017 at Arulmigu Venkatachalapathi Temple, Tallakulam, Madurai, followed by reception at V.S. Chellam Saraswathi Mahal, Madurai. The respondent is employed in the Indian Army (Junior Engineer, MES; c/o Garrison Engineer Project, New Cantonment, opposite Military Hospital, Allahabad–211001). The petitioner alleges:
(i) a pre marital dispute about dowry and quantum of jewels leading to a complaint by her mother to the Assistant Commissioner, Tallakulam, who counselled the parties;
(ii) an understanding allegedly recorded/communicated that the petitioner would not be compelled to reside in the respondent’s native village, Melamundal, owing to inadequate civic/medical facilities;
(iii) very brief cohabitation at the petitioner’s maternal home post marriage;
(iv) during her short stay at Melamundal on 24.06.2017, she suffered acute abdominal pain; due to lack of medical facilities she returned to Madurai;
(v) thereafter the relationship deteriorated; complaints were lodged with Othakadai Police; attempts at rapprochement allegedly failed;
(vi) the respondent insisted she must reside first at Melamundal and only thereafter he would consider taking her to his place of posting;
(vii) she is living with and care giving for her ailing senior citizen mother;
(viii) the respondent draws about 1,00,000 per month and has agricultural income; she claimed 40,000 p.m. as maintenance.
3. The respondent’s defence before the Family Court:
the petitioner wilfully refused to reside in her matrimonial home, even for customary ceremonies, and left without intimation on the second visit; he filed H.M.O.P. No.28 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights; according to him, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P. No.524 of 2018 for divorce and later obtained an ex parte decree on 09.10.2019; and he has since remarried in 2020 and has a child. The learned Family Court recorded the filing of H.M.O.P. No.524 of 2018 (as Court Document No.2). However, a certified copy of the divorce decree dated 09.10.2019 was not exhibited. The rival pleadings on divorce are noticed as submissions.
4. Trial Court’s Decision (impugned):
The Family Court, after extracting Section 125 Cr.P.C . 1973, held that the petitioner refused to live with the husband without sufficient cause, treating her insistence on not living at Melamundal as the crux of the dispute. It also treated a police complaint allegedly lodged before marriage (not formally marked by either party) as a “Court document No.1” and reasoned that the wife’s stand not to go to the matrimonial village at all was unreasonable. On that premise, the maintenance petition was dismissed.
5. Points for Determination:
The following questions arise:
a) Whether the Family Court was right in concluding that the petitioner “refused to live” with the husband without sufficient reason so as to attract the bar under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C .1973?
b) What is the legal effect, if any, of an alleged decree of divorce (if proved) on the wife’s entitlem
