Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that a woman having lived as a wife, borne children, and been deserted without support, falls within the protective umbrella of Section 125 CrPC and the technical plea of invalidity of marriage cannot be a valid ground to deny her maintenance.
“The parties are dark complexioned people, but their child was fair complexioned. That is the reason why the dispute arose, and the husband started to physically harass the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child.”
“The statutory provisions for maintenance are intended to protect the spouse, children or parents from destitution and vagrancy, and they declare the public policy of the nation. Thus, the above legal principle is equally applicable to an agreement attempting to contract out of the provisions of the Act.”
“A few moral lapses and a return back to a normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be ‘living in adultery.’”
The Court clarified that under Section 125(4) CrPC, maintenance can only be denied if the wife is living in adultery, which requires proof of a sexual relationship.
“The wife is a well-educated lady, but also she was previously working in some media houses, however, she has definite prospects to work and earn for her sustenance.”
In the matter at hand, the Family Court ordered for payment of Rs. 3,000/- maintenance. The High Court noted that without producing any proof of the infidelity of his wife, the husband simply character assassinated his wife.
“It would depend on the facts of the individual case, and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances.”
The Court, however, opined that “Section 125 of CrPC has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse.”
In the instant matter, the husband deliberately took loan after the separation to bring down his net take home salary, therefore, the Court held that it cannot be considered as statutory and mandatory deduction.
“Section 125 of CrPC has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse.”
July, just after the summer break, was the month of ground-breaking and landmark decisions. From long arguments on NEET-UG 2024 scam to landmark decisions on genetically modified crops, guidelines on portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, films, and maintainability of WB’s suit against misuse of CBI, this roundup revisits it all.
In the case at hand, the husband had argued that in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintain a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC and has to proceed under the provisions of the 1986 Act.
In the case at hand, the husband had argued that in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintain a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC and has to proceed under the provisions of the 1986 Act.
A fascicular reading of Sections 125(1) and 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 clearly demonstrates that if husband wilfully and intentionally neglects to provide maintenance to his wife then she can approach before the court seeking maintenance.
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that Supreme Court has emphasised on the broad interpretation of the term “wife” under Section 125 of CrPC and the presumption of marriage in cases of long cohabitation.
“The Court shall take only the present income of the husband and wife into consideration for determining maintenance payable to the wife and children.”
Even if the proceeding was ex-parte against the petitioner, still the required affidavit was to be filed by the wife so as to find out her assets/liabilities/source of income etc.
A person who has already having been sent to civil imprisonment for a period of three months, cannot be sent to civil prison again in execution of the same decree for a second time.
The Calcutta High Court stated that the documents presented by the petitioner which mention her as wife are mere declarations, subject to proof, if challenged.