Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application challenging the maintenance order by the applicant, Husband, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the application, affirmed the maintenance award to wife-respondent 1 and acknowledged the respondents’ right to seek an enhancement of the maintenance amount through the appropriate legal channels.
“Leading a modern life without committing an offence cannot be criticized at all. Unless and until it is held that wife is residing separately without any reasonable reason, she cannot be denied maintenance.”
In the instant matter, the applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the order dated 02-08-2023, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna, which awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to respondent 2. The applicant contended that the separation between the applicant and respondent 1 stemmed from cultural disparities, with the petitioner hailing from an orthodox background and respondent 1 adopting a modern lifestyle. The applicant presented evidence from respondent 1’s Facebook posts to support this claim. The applicant objected specifically to the maintenance awarded to respondent 1, citing her modern lifestyle as grounds for quashing the order.
The Court had “repeatedly asked counsel for the applicant as to whether this Court by by-passing the provisions of law can deal the cases on the basis of morality? And whether living a modern life can be said to be an immoral act on the part of respondent No.1?” The Court considered the submissions made by the applicant that law cannot exist in isolation from morality and therefore, morality should be given preference. Referring to Nagarathinam v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 559, the Court emphasised that unless the wife’s conduct amounted to criminal activity or unreasonable separation, she had the right to live according to her preferences, whether modern or orthodox. The Court stated that “this court cannot hold that if the wife is leading a modern life and if such an act of the wife is immoral in the eyes of her husband, then wife is wrong.” The Court found no substantial evidence indicating unjustifiable separation or criminal behavior on the part of respondent 1.
The Court held that there was no jurisdictional error in the trial court’s decision. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to award maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent 1, considering factors such as the cost of living and inflation. The Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s decision. The Court also noted that the application’s dismissal would not preclude respondents from seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount under Section 482 of the CrPC.
[Sukhendra Chatuvedi v. Sneha, M.Cr.C No.54170/2023, order dated 04-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Counsel for the Applicant
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
