Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Expressing that husband must also carry the financial burden of making certain that his children are capable of attaining a position in a society wherein they can sufficiently maintain themselves, Subramonium Prasad, J., stated that,

In households wherein the women are working and are earning sufficiently to maintain themselves, it does not automatically mean that the husband is absolved of his responsibility to provide sustenance for his children. 

“…if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.”

Instant application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code had been filed seeking the review of this Court’s order, wherein this Court had granted a sum of Rs 15,000 as interim maintenance to the revisionist/Petitioner 1 till Petitioner 2 completes his graduation or starts earning, whichever is earlier.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court expressed that the embargo contained in Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits the Court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order disposing of the case was inapplicable to the maintenance order passed under Section 125 CrPC.

In the Supreme Court decision of Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC 172, the Supreme Court had observed that the legislature was aware that there were situations where altering or reviewing of criminal court judgment were contemplates in the Code itself or any other law for the time being in force.

Noting that Section 125 CrPC was social justice legislation, the Supreme Court held that a closer look at Section 125 CrPC itself indicated that the Court after passing judgment or final order in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC did not become functus officio, and that the Section itself contains express provisions wherein an Order passed under Section 125 CrPC could be cancelled or altered, and that this was noticeable from Sections 125(1), 125(5) and 127 CrPC. Therefore, the legislative scheme as delineated by Sections 125 and 127 CrPC clearly enumerates circumstances and incidents provided in the Code where the Court passing a judgement or final order disposing of the case can alter or review the same. The embargo as contained in Section 362 is, thus, relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

Bench stated that Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualization of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman’s sustenance, along with that of the children, if any.

The dominant purpose of Section 125 of the Code was discussed in the Supreme Court decision of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479.

High Court added to its analysis, that it is true that in the majority of households, women are unable to work due to sociocultural as well as structural impediments, and, thus, cannot financially support themselves. However, in households wherein the women are working and are earning sufficiently to maintain themselves, it does not automatically mean that the husband is absolved of his responsibility to provide sustenance for his children.

Father has an equal duty to provide for his children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising and educating the children.

 Court cannot shut its eyes to the reality that simply attaining majority does not translate into the understanding that the major son is earning sufficiently.

To elaborate more, High Court added that,

At the age of 18, it can be safely assumed that the son is either graduating from 12th standard or is in his first year of college. More often than not, it does not place him in a position wherein he can earn to sustain or maintain himself. It further places the entire burden on the mother to bear the expenses of educating the children without any contribution from the father, and this Court cannot countenance such a situation.

It was also noted that the Supreme Court and High Courts in a slew of judgments upheld the maintenance allowance granted to a son post attaining majority on the ground that the father has a duty to finance basic education of the child and that the child cannot be deprived of his right to be educated due to his parents getting divorced.

Present Matter

In the present matter, the challenge to the maintenance granted for the education of the major son has been mounted by the respondent on the ground that it is contrary to the relevant statutory provision i.e. Section 125, and that it diametrically opposes the interpretation of Section 125 as has been laid down in Amarendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul, (2009) 8 SCC 359.

High Court noted that statutes or provisions, which are particularly for the furtherance of social welfare, must be construed liberally.

In Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 589, the Supreme Court had observed that the best textual interpretation of legislation or a statutory provision would be one that would match the contextual. Therefore, in this context, social welfare legislation cannot and should not be interpreted in a narrow manner because doing so will defeat the purpose for the enactment of such legislation and will become counterproductive.

Context of Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that the wife and the children of the husband are not left in a state of destitution after the divorce.

“Mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure on the education of her son just because he has completed 18 years of age, and the father cannot be absolved of all responsibilities to meet the education expenses of his son because the son may have attained the age of majority, but may not be financially independent and could be incapable of sustaining himself.”

 In view of the above, the application was dismissed. [Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4641, decided on 5-10-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

 For Petitioner: Praveen Suri and Komal Chhibber, Advocates

For Respondent: Digvijay Ray and Aman Yadav, Advocates

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J. remarked “There is neither any illegality nor the maintenance beyond the petitioner’s means; as such, there are no merits in the present petition.”

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner persuaded and married the respondent when she was a widow with three children. In the beginning, her marital life was good, but later on, his attitude changed, which led to discord, and he even withdrew his financial support. He would spend money on liquor instead of giving it to her and her children. Furthermore, he would abuse, assault, and beat the petitioner on trivial matters. Given such behavior and the absence of financial support, it became impossible for her to reside with him in his house. Consequently, she was forced to shift to the house of her first husband, where Subhash Chand neither paid visit nor gave any money. The petitioner’s wife filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code i.e. CrPC, seeking monthly maintenance from the petitioner-husband which was thereby allowed. The petitioner stated that she is still drawing benefits, which is being given to widows, and, as such, her drawing such benefits would show that she never solemnized marriage with him. The husband challenged the said order by filing criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Bilaspur which was dismissed too. Challenging both the orders, the husband filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Court relied on judgment Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, AIR 1978 SC 1807, wherein it was observed regarding Section 125 CrPC as under:

 “[9]. this provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that section of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to the selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause – the cause of the derelicts.”

The Court observed that S. 125 (1) (a) of CrPC provides grant of maintenance to the wife, unable to maintain herself. Proviso to S. 125 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to order monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and also the expenses of such proceeding during its pendency. The foundation of the measures of social Justice enacted by the Legislature lay beneath the sweep of Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India. It fulfills the concept of a welfare State in a vibrant democracy by safeguarding wives and children and preventing them from the modes of vagrancy and its consequences. Given above, it would be appropriate for the Courts to direct the person against whom an application is made under S. 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application.

The Court further observed that the contents of the wife’s application, which is supported by her affidavit, prima-facie make out just grounds for the wife to live separately and that she could not sustain financially, making out a case for interim maintenance.

The Court thus held “There is neither any illegality nor the maintenance beyond the petitioner’s means; as such, there are no merits in the present petition. Furthermore, if the Court concludes that Krishani Devi played fraud upon Subhash Chand, it would undoubtedly have consequences. Given above, the impugned orders are well reasoned and call for no interference.”

[Subhash Chand v. Krishani Devi, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 7309, decided on 20-09-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances

For Petitioner- Adv. T S Chauhan

For Respondent- Adv. Seema Azad

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Andhra Pradesh High Court: While explaining the law on whether father is obligated to provide maintenance to his daughter irrespective of the fact that she has turned major, Joymalya Bagchi, J., refused to interfere with the decision of lower court.

Issue:

The father challenged the lower court’s decision for recovery of maintenance to the tune of Rs 22,000 for a period of 11 months on the ground that 2nd respondent, his daughter, had attained majority.

Court took note of the fact that the maintenance order passed in favour of 2nd respondent-daughter was not modified under Section 127 CrPC and she was unmarried and had no source of income.

It was argued that maintenance order would not survive as the daughter had attained the age of majority and this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction ought to set aside the order directing realization of dues payable to 2nd respondent after her attaining majority.

Crux:

Whether Magistrate was justified to order recovery of maintenance due to 2nd respondent, who was unmarried and pursuing her education, and who had had attained majority.

Supreme Court in the decision of Abhilasha v. Parkash,2020 SCC OnLine SC 736, observed that though a Family Court is entitled to grant maintenance to a major in-married girl by combining the liabilities under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956, a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 125 CrPC was not authorized to do so.

Bench stated that Magistrate is entitled to entertain an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and grant monetary relief to meet expenses incurred and losses suffered by an aggrieved person under Section 20 of the DV Act, in the event of domestic violence by way of economic abuse is established.

Conjoint reading of Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the DV Act would show that a daughter, who is or was living with her father in a domestic relationship by way of consanguinity, is entitled to seek reliefs including monetary relief on her own right as an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the DV Act irrespective of the fact whether she is a major or minor.

In the present matter, the relation between the parties as father and daughter was admitted and they both had stayed together in a shared household.

Hence, in Court’s opinion, the decision of the Magistrate directing recovery of maintenance was not illegal on the mere ground that she turned major.

Further, the Court clarified that in Abhilasha v. Parkash,2020 SCC OnLine SC 736, the power of the magistrate to grant monetary relief under the DV Act did not fall for consideration and further the Bench added citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajput Ruda Meha and v. State of Gujarat, that it is settled law that a judgment is not an authority for a proposition which was neither raised nor argued.

Therefore, Court concluded by denying to interfere with the impugned order. [Menti Trinadha Venkata Ramana v. Menti Lakshmi, 2021 SCC OnLine AP 2860, decided on 9-09-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: T.V. Sridevi

For the Respondent 3: Additional Public Prosecutor

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. agreed to reduce the sentence of the appellant−husband convicted for offence of cruelty to woman punishable under Section 498-A IPC, if he pays Rs 3 lakh as compensation to his wife and children. The Supreme Court observed that:

“The object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim. It is towards this objective that Section 357 CrPC is enacted in the statute. The objective of which is to apply whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied on payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence. In the present case, it is one of voluntarily offering the amount albeit to seek a reduction of sentence.”

Complainant was the second wife of the appellant. Two children were born to them from the wedlock. The complainant alleged that on instigation of the first wife, the appellant started mental and physical torture and made dowry demands. Consequently, the complainant had to go back to her parent’s house. A complaint was registered and the appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. He was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate court. Criminal revision preferred by the appellant before the High Court met the same fate. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The appellant prayed for extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which was declined by the Supreme Court. However, the Court expressed that it was not averse to consideration of reduction of sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner gave adequate compensation to the complainant for herself and the children apart from whatever maintenance was being paid under Section 125 CrPC.

The appellant submitted that he was willing to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to the complainant and the children. The complainant was agreeable to receive the compensation of Rs 3 lakh. Further, on compensation being paid, she had no objection if the sentence of the appellant is reduced and/or if he is granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. In such view of the matter, the Court said that:

“[K]eeping in mind the nature of the offence, we had declined the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. However, if the petitioner/appellant is showing remorse and is willing to make arrangements for [the complainant] and his two children born out of the wedlock, we would not like to come in the way of such an arrangement, which should be beneficial to [the complainant] and her children.”

Noting that the appellant had undergone about seven months of imprisonment, the Court was inclined to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone in case he pays a sum of Rs 3 lakh to the complaint for her benefit and the children’s benefit. The Court however made it clear that if the amount is not paid, the appellant will have to undergo the remaining part of the three years’ sentence. [Samual Sk. v. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 645, decided on 31-8-2021]


Tejaswi Pandit, Senior Editorial Assistant has reported this brief. 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., held that,

“…relegating parties to customary Courts when they themselves admit that they are following Hindu customs and traditions would be antithetical to the purpose behind enacting a statute like the HMA, 1955.”

Question for Consideration:

Applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in respect of the parties who belonged to the Meena community in view of the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the HMA,1955.

Petitioner and respondent sought divorce under Section 13-1(ia) of the HMA, 1955.

An FIR was lodged by the Respondent under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as also an application seeking maintenance, under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the divorce petition, since the respondent did not appear, she proceeded ex-parte. However, after she was permitted to participate by the Supreme Court, she filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the family court.

In the said application respondent sought for rejection of the divorce petition, on the ground that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 do not apply to the parties, on the ground that the provisions of the HMA do not apply to the parties concerned as they are members of a notified Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, and hence the HMA, 1955 would not be applicable to the case of the said parties in view of Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.

Family Court held that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 do not extend to the Meena community, which was a notified Scheduled Tribe. The said order was under challenge in the present petition.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench noted that the case of the wife was that the Meena community was covered by the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the HMA.

Divorce petition under Section 13-1(ia) of the HMA was dismissed by the trial court on the basis of the exclusion in Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955. The trial court had not conducted the trial in the petition or considered the evidence in the matter, but summarily dismissed the petition simply on the ground that since the parties belong to the Meena Community, the provisions of the HMA, 1955 would not be applicable.

Court noted that the parties have since inception pleaded that they belong to the Meena community, however, their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, and they follow Hindu customs.

Respondent-wife had admitted that:

(i) that the marriage was conducted as per the “Hindu Riti Riwaz”

(ii) that the marriage was effected by following the “Saptapadi”

(iii) that the marriage was conducted in front of `Agni’ – fire.

Whether in view of the above facts, parties ought to be governed by the provisions of the HMA or should they be relegated to procedures of the Meena tribe?

The word `Hindu’ is not defined in any of the statutes. It is in view of the fact that there is no definition of Hindu, that the Supreme Court has held in Labishwar Manjhi  v. Pran Manjhi, (2000) 8 SCC 587, that if members of Tribes are Hinduised, the provisions of the HMA, 1955 would be applicable.

Further, the High Court expressed that the manner in which the marriage had been conducted in the present matter and the customs being followed by the parties show that as in the case of Hindus, the marriage is conducted in front of the fire. The Hindu customary marriage involves the ceremony of Saptapadi which has also been performed in the present case. The various other ceremonies, as is clear from the marriage invitation are also as per Hindu customs.

Hence,

If members of a tribe voluntarily choose to follow Hindu customs, traditions and rites they cannot be kept out of the purview of the provisions of the HMA, 1955.

Adding to the above, High Court also stated that nothing was placed before the Court to show that the Meena community Tribe had a specialized Court with proper procedures to deal with the issues.

Therefore, if the Court has to choose between relegating parties to customary Courts which may or may not provide for proper procedures and safeguards as against codified statutes envisioning adequate safeguards and procedures, this Court is inclined to lean in favour of an interpretation in favour of the latter, especially in view of the binding precedent of the Supreme Court.

Divorce Proceedings

Court held that if proper tribal customs were not established or the following of Hindu customs or rites was admitted by the parties, there was no reason to hold that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 would not apply. 

The trial court erred in noting the admissions of Respondent-wife which led to the incorrect conclusion. 

Courts have been repeatedly confronted with the conflicts that arise in personal laws

Bench remarked that persons belonging to various communities, castes, and religions, who forge marital bonds, struggle with such conflicts. It is with the hope of bringing uniformity and to eliminate these struggles and conflicts, that the Supreme Court way back in 1985, in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 observed:

“…A common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so.”

In Jordon Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, (1985) 3 SCC 62, the Supreme Court observed in the context of dissolution of marriage between a couple wherein the wife belong to the Naga Tribe and the husband was a Sikh by religion that Article 44 of the Constitution needs to be implemented in its letter and spirit.

Need for a Uniform Code has been again echoed by the Supreme Court in ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1.

Lastly, the Court concluded stating that the need for a Uniform Civil Code as envisioned under Article 44, has been reiterated from time to time by the Supreme Court. Cases like the present one repeatedly highlight the need for such a Code – ‘common to all’, which would enable uniform principles being applied in respect of aspects such as marriage, divorce, succession etc., so that settled principles, safeguards and procedures can be laid down and citizens are not made to struggle due to the conflicts and contradictions in various personal laws.

The hope expressed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State shall secure for its citizens Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope.

The Supreme Court had, in 1985 directed that the judgment in Jordon Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, (1985) 3 SCC 62, to be placed before the Ministry of Law to take appropriate steps. However, more than three decades have passed since then and it is unclear as to what steps have been taken in this regard till date.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal was allowed.[Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3645, decided on 7-07-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: F.K. Jha, Advocate

For the Respondent: Abhinav Gupta and Nitesh Ranjan, Advocates

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while allowing in part the revision petition filed challenging the Family Court’s maintenance order made a very crucial observation, that father’s obligation to maintain a child cannot come to an end once the child turns 18 years of age. Read more to know why.

Instant petition was directed against the Family Court’s Order declining maintenance to the petitioner 1/wife and granting maintenance only to petitioner 2 and 3.

Since the interim maintenance order was an interlocutory order, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the present application was barred under Section 397(2) CrPC.

Further, the counsel for the petitioners contended that after holding that each of the children is entitled to 25% of the amount of the income of the respondent, the learned Family Court ought not to have further apportioned the amount and limited the liability of the respondent only to 12.5% of the amount of the salary earned by the respondent.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court stated that since the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to ensure that the wife and the children are not put to starvation, Courts while fixing interim maintenance are not expected to dwell into minute and excruciating details and fact which are to be proved by the parties.

Further, Bench elaborated with regard to other contention of children being entitled to 25% of salary earned by respondent, that, petitioner 1/wife who was earning and was equally responsible for the child can take care of the balance as respondent was married again and had a child from the second marriage.

Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the respondent has equal responsibility towards the child from the second marriage.

Petitioner 1/Wife was working as an Upper Division Clerk in Delhi Municipal Corporation earning Rs 60,000 per month and the two children were living with the mother and after the age of majority, entire expenditure of petitioner 2 was being borne by petitioner 1 as petitioner 2 turned major and was still studying but was not earning anything.

Therefore, the family court failed to appreciate that since the respondent was making no contribution towards the maintenance of petitioner 2, the salary earned by petitioner 1 was not sufficient to maintain herself.

Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that at the age of 18 the education of petitioner 2 is not yet over and the petitioner 2 cannot sustain himself.

Bench held that it cannot be said that the obligation of the father would come to an end as the son reached 18 years of age and the entire burden of his education and other expenses would fall only on the mother.

Adding to the above analysis, it was stated that It is not reasonable to expect that the mother alone would bear the entire burden for herself and for the son with the small amount of maintenance given by the respondent herein towards the maintenance of his daughter.

Hence, Court granted a sum of Rs 15,000 per month as interim maintenance to petitioner 1 from the date of petitioner 2 attaining the age of majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning whichever is earlier.

In view of the above, the revision petition was allowed in part and disposed of. [Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3242, decided on 14-06-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioners: Mr Praveen Suri and Ms. Komal Chibber, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr Digvijay Rai and Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocates

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing a revision petition in regard to maintenance of wife, held that

Magazine covers are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent /wife can sustain herself.

Instant revision petition is against the Family Court’s decision directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 17,000 per month to the wife.

The daughter of husband and wife in the present matter passed away in the year 2010 and at present, they have two major adult sons who are well settled.

Parties have been living separately since the year 2012. Wife filed the petition under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance stating that she was treated with cruelty and was thrown out of the house in the year 2012 and she was unable to sustain herself, hence required maintenance from the husband.

It was stated that the husband was earning an income of Rs 50,000 from the post of Head Constable and also had some agricultural land from which he was earning an income.

Wife claimed Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance.

Husband submitted that the wife was a working lady earning handsomely. Adding to this he stated that she participates in Jagrans and does TV Serials and was in a position to take care of herself. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of income.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Statement filed by the wife under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, she herself stated that she was doing modelling and it was for her to establish that income earned by her was so less that she couldn’t maintain herself.

Petitioners counsel also presented certain magazine covers and newspaper articles to establish that the respondent was employed and capable of maintaining herself.

Bench stated that law laid down by Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, indicates that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC have been enacted to remedy/reduce the financial suffering of a lady, who was forced to leave her matrimonial house, so that some arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself.

It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children. A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissibly ground is contained in the statutes. 

Court noted that in the present matter, petitioner relied only on the statement given by the respondent/wife under Section 165 Indian Evidence Act. In the said statement she clearly mentioned her employment adding that her income was very low on which her sustenance was difficult.

In view of the above position, the onus to show how much the respondent/wife was earning shifts on the petitioner to show that it was enough for her sustenance. But petitioner failed to bring any evidence.

Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s position that newspaper clippings, etc. are not evidence.

 It was noted that the petitioner was working as an ASI and both the children were well settled, and he was not under any obligation to maintain his children but the wife.

On asking about divorce, it was stated that the petitioner’s children did not want him to take divorce from his wife, hence it becomes the moral and legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.

Bench while dismissing the revision petition held that no material was placed on record to show that respondent/wife was able to sustain herself. [Jaiveer Singh v. Sunita Chaudhary, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1488, decided on 05-04-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Neerad Pandey, Advocate

For the Respondent: D.K. Sharma, Advocate

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., partly allowed a revision petition filed by the husband and reduced the amount of interim maintenance granted to the respondent-wife and son from Rs 12,500 per month to Rs 4,500 per month. While so deciding, the Court held that:

It is trite law that it is for the wife to establish that the petitioner [husband] was earning some amount from the business of his father and that even after the death of the petitioner’s father the business was continued by the family members. Some material ought to have been produced by the respondent to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was also running some business in the name of Rakesh & Company.

The husband filed the instant petition against the order of the Family Court, Saket, whereby he was directed to pay the maintenance at Rs 12,500 per month to the applicant wife and their son (Rs 7,500 for the wife and Rs 5,000 for the son).

Backdrop

The petitioner and respondent 1 got married in 2012. A son was born to them. However, disputes arose, and the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On the other hand, the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance. An application for interim maintenance was also pressed. The wife alleged that the husband was earning Rs 35,000 per month. This included salary of Rs 20,000 drawn by working in a shop and another Rs 15,000 earned from his father’s business. An amount of Rs 18,000 (Rs 10,000 for the wife and Rs 8,000 for the son) was claimed as maintenance.

The husband disputed his income as alleged by the wife. The Family Court, however, estimated the husband’s income at Rs 30,000 per month and fixed the maintenance at Rs 12,500 per month.

On the husband’s inability to pay the amount as awarded by the Family Court, he was taken into judicial custody.

Contentions

The petitioner contended that the judgment of the Family Court was based on conjectures and surmises. He filed an affidavit and stated that his father was running a business of Sesame Oil, but it was closed after the father’s death. The petitioner husband also filed an affidavit of the Manager of the shop where the petitioner was working. The Manager deposed that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs 9,000 per month.

On the other hand, the respondent-wife contended that the husband was concealing his actual income.

Law, Analysis and Decision

Perusing the record, the High Court was of the opinion that the entire judgment of the Family Court was based on guesswork. There was no material, whatsoever, for the Family Court to conclude that the husband was earning Rs 30,000 per month. No reason was forthcoming as to why the appointment letter given by the employer of the husband was disbelieved/discarded by the Family Court.

It was held that it is trite law that it is for the wife to establish that the petitioner was earning some amount from the business of his father and that even after the death of the petitioner’s father the business was continued by the family members. Some material ought to have been produced by the respondent to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was also running some business in the name of Rakesh & Company. The Court was of the view that:

“In the absence of any material on record, the judgment of the Family Court fixing the salary of the petitioner at Rs 30,000 per month and awarding Rs 12,500 for the wife and children cannot be sustained.”

Further, the High Court found that it cannot ignore the fact that the husband was in jail because of his inability to pay maintenance to his wife:

Had the petitioner been capable of paying the maintenance, the petitioner would have made the payment rather than going to jail.

In view of the above and in view of the absence of any material to the contrary and the only material being the affidavit filed by the husband that he is earning Rs 9,000 per month, the High Court reduced the amount of maintenance as granted by the Family Court and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs 4,500 as interim maintenance to the wife and their son from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 1-3-2016. He was further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within two months.

It was made clear that all the observations made in the instant order are only restricted for the purpose of calculating the interim maintenance; and the amount of maintenance to be paid under Section 125 CrPC would be arrived at by the Family Court after taking into account the entire evidence adduced by the parties before it. [Amit Kumar Sindhi v. Monika, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1324, decided on. 23-3-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Suresh Kumar Gupta, J., while addressing an issue with maintenance allowance determined a very significant point of whether rent allowance is included under maintenance allowance or not.

Factual Matrix

OP 2 had filed an application against the revisionist under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Principal Judge/Family Court on 26-04-2014.

It has been submitted by the OP -2 that presently the daughters of OP-2 and revisionist are in the care and custody of OP-2.

OP-2 alleged that during her pregnancy of her second daughter, the revisionist solemnized marriage in USA with John NG and totally neglected OP-2 due to which she had to move out to Bangalore taking shelter at her parental house in NOIDA.

Family Court had directed the revisionist to deposit Rs 25,000/- maintenance each to the two minor daughters of the revisionist and Rs 20,000/- as rent, cumulatively Rs 70,000/- in exercise of powers under Section 125 CrPC.

During the pendency of interim maintenance, the revisionist moved the application to quash and modify the interim maintenance order.

High Court on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed the following:

 “…findings recorded in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are not final and parties are always at liberty to agitate their rights in Civil Court.

Order under Section 125 CrPC does not finally determine the status, rights and obligations of the parties and it only provides for maintenance of indigent wives, children and parents.”

Bench relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 and various other decisions in order to reach a conclusion in the present matter.

In view of the decision cited, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence and nothing on record was present to show Family Court’s proceedings to be perverse.

In the case of maintenance, the Court has to see whether the wife has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason and it is also to be seen whether the husband has neglected to maintain his wife, without any valid reason.

In the present matter, wife and husband have been living separately due to the physical and mental cruelty meted out to the wife along with the extramarital relationship of the husband with another woman.

Bench also added that merely because the wife was capable of earning, this would not be a sufficient ground to refuse claim of maintenance to minor daughters.

If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in the position to support himself, thus, he is under the legal obligation to support his minor children and her wives.

Hence Family Court’s order for maintenance is appropriate, just and legal.

Bench on noting the fact that as per the OP-2’s salary slip she was already getting the house rent allowance, therefore, the same is not permissible under the maintenance allowance. In view of the same, the Judgment of the family court regarding Rs 20,000 as rent allowance was liable to be quashed.

“…rent allowance does not come in the purview of maintenance allowance under Section 125 CrPC.”

Concluding the decision, Court partly allowed the revision while upholding the maintenance allowance of Rs 25,000 each for minor daughters. [Ankur Gupta v. State of U.P.,  2021 SCC OnLine All 189, decided on 03-03-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

Counsel for Revisionist:- Rajiv Lochan Shukla, J.B. Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party:- G.A., Nipun Singh

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Mary Joseph, J., while addressing an issue of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, expressed that the said provision does not say that wife, children or parents who are at the mercy of the parents, grandparents or relatives are not entitled to get monthly maintenance or else in the case of a wife, children or parents who are neglected and surviving at the mercy of other near relatives are not entitled to get maintenance.

Respondents in the present matter had sought for enhancement of the sum ordered originally by the Family Court as monthly maintenance which was ordered at the rate of Rs 1,000 but the petitioner defaulted in payment after some time.

Revision petitioner contended that he was physically handicapped and that the eldest of the children being employed and financially affluent were maintaining the respondents. Hence, due to being devoid of any means of livelihood he submitted that he was not liable to maintain the respondents.

Petitioner had proved before the Family Court that the respondent was remarried and respondents contention that he had no means and therefore was not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners could not be accepted for the sole reason that he got married secondly and begotten children.

Muslim Personal Law is self-contained of the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife by providing her with food, clothing and lodging. In the Code, a legal recognition is given to the right of a deserted wife, son/daughter, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

Section 125 CrPC specifically provides that wife, children or parents unable to maintain themselves are entitled to receive monthly maintenance from a male who holds status respectively with reference to them as husband, father or son.

Bench held that the Husband cannot be exonerated from his legal obligation to maintain on the ground that deserted or neglected ones are surviving somehow or else being maintained by someone.

Hence, the Family Court rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned orders modifying the monthly maintenance payable to the petitioner justly and reasonably. [Mohammedkunhi v. Safura, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 407, decided on 04-01-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: K. Murali Shankar, J., addressed the issue with regard to payment of maintenance, whether from the date of application or date of order.

Factual Matrix

In the present matter, the second respondent is the mother and respondents 3 and 4, brothers of the first respondent who had married the petitioner. After a while misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and first respondent due to which they started living separately.

Petitioner had filed a maintenance case earlier and the Magistrate passed an order directing the first respondent to pay monthly maintenance at Rs 5,000 per month to the petitioner and her minor children.

Petitioner’s case

Petitioner stated that in order to avoid the payment of maintenance, respondents conspired and took the petitioner and her children to Chennai so as to resume their cohabitation. In the period of two months that the petitioner lived with first respondent, she was harassed and tortured physically and mentally and the petitioner was forcefully sent out of the matrimonial home by forcibly retaining the minor children.

In view of the above petitioner invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005.

Trial Court passed impugned order, wherein first respondent was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs 5,000. On not being satisfied with the maintenance amount also the order of the trial court directing the first respondent to pay maintenance from the date of the order, petitioner/wife came forward with the present revision.

Analysis

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not provide the date from which the maintenance to be awarded and there is no provisions in the Hindu Adoption and Marriage Act with respect to the date from which the maintenance order may be made effective. But, at the same time, Section 125(2) CrPC, contemplates that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application.

 In the Supreme Court decision of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandras Vyas, (2015) 2 SCC 385, it was held that Section 125 CrPC, impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts.

It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply states that maintenance should be paid from either the date of order or the date of the application in matters of maintenance.

As per Section 354(6) of the CrPC, the Court should record reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities and that the purpose of the provision is to prevent vagrancy and destitution in society and the Court must apply its mind to the options having regard to the facts of the particular case.

Supreme Court in its decision of Rajnesh v. Neha,2020 SCC OnLine SC 903, after analyzing the provisions in various enactment of the Judgments of the appeal and considering the divergent views taken by the various Courts issued necessary direction to bring about the uniformity in the orders passed by all the Courts.

Right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing of the application, since the period during which maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. Considering the above, the Supreme Court categorically directed that all the Courts award maintenance from the date of application.

 Conclusion

In the present matter, the petitioner had filed the case in the year 2014 and the impugned order was passed on 11-07-2017.

In view of the above discussion, Court held that it has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order granting maintenance from the date of order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner would be entitled to get maintenance from the date of application.

Hence, criminal revision case was partly allowed. [Mohamed Nisha Banu v. Mohamed Rafi, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 801, decided on 17-02-2021]


Advocates who appeared for the parties:

For petitioner : S.M. Jinnah

For Respondent: No appearance

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Y.K. Srivastava, J., expressed while deciding the present application that:

“Proceeding for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice on the husband.”

Instant application was filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of order in proceedings in a case filed under Section 125 of CrPC.

Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the order sought to be quashed, related to grant of interim maintenance, is subject to a final adjudication on the main petition filed under Section 125 CrPC It is submitted that it is open to the applicant to raise all his objections before the Family Court.

Section 125 CrPC falls under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and it contains provisions whereunder, an order for maintenance of wives, children and parents can be made. The object of the provisions contained under Chapter IX is to provide a speedy and effective remedy against persons, who neglect or refuse to maintain their dependent wives, children and parents.

It was observed that the proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC are of a summary nature and the purpose and object of the same is to provide immediate relief to the applicant.

An application under Section 125 CrPC can be moved by the wife on fulfilment of two conditions :-

a) the husband has sufficient means and;

(b) he neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. The Magistrate, in such a case, may direct the husband to pay such monthly sum of the money, as deemed fit taking into consideration the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors.

Bench observed that Section 125 CrPC is in the nature of a benevolent provision having a social purpose with the primary objective to ensure social justice to the wife, child and parents, who are unable to support themselves so as to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

With regard to the third proviso of Section 125 CrPC, Court expressed that it gives a timeline by providing that the proceeding for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice on the husband.

Hence, an order granting interim maintenance is subject to a final adjudication on the main petition and the interim maintenance granted during the pendency of the proceedings is only provisional maintenance subject to final determination to be made on the conclusion of the proceedings.

In light of the above discussion, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction in respect of the reliefs prayed for.

Counsel for the applicant at this stage made a prayer that he may be permitted to withdraw the present application and stated that the applicant would contest the proceedings before the court below.

The present application filed under Section 482 CrPC stood, accordingly, dismissed. [Mithilesh Maurya v. State of U.P., Application u/s 482 no. – 19612 of 2020, decided on 08-01-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Raj Beer Singh, J., observed that:

“The object of the Section 125 CrPC being to afford a swift remedy, and the determination by the Magistrate as to the status of the parties being subject to a final determination by the Civil Court, when the husband denies that the applicant is not his wife, all that the Magistrate has to find, in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, is whether there was some marriage ceremony between the parties, whether they have lived as husband and wife in the eyes of their neighbours, whether children were born from the union.”

The instant revision was preferred against the order passed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Contention that falls for consideration:

Whether respondent 2 has been able to show herself as married wife of revisionist in order to claim maintenance from revisionist under Section 125 CrPC?

Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. are summary proceeding. In Supreme Court’s decision of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675, it was observed that the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC.

Bench expressed that it is a well-settled law that for the purposes of a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, the factum of marriage has to be prima facie considered.

“If there is prima facie material on record to suggest that the parties have married or are having relationship in the nature of marriage, the court can presume in favour of the woman claiming maintenance.”

 Court also stated that an order passed in an application under Section 125 CrPC does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents.

In the decision of S. Sethurathiuam Pillai v. Barbara it was observed that maintenance under Section 488 CrPC, 1898 (similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties.

Court observed that in a proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, a Magistrate or Judge of the Family Court has to be prima facie satisfied about the marital status of the parties, as a decision under Section 125 CrPC is tentative in nature, subject to the decision in any civil proceeding, as has been held in Santosh v. Naresh Pal (1998) 8 SCC 447.

In light of the above discussions, High Court states that if from the evidence which is led, the Magistrate/Court is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required.

In the instant matter, respondent 2 had submitted that her nikah was solemnized with the revisionist and out of that marriage, she gave birth to a daughter, but she was killed by the revisionist, whereas the case of the revisionist was that his nikah was never solemnized and they never lived as husband and wife together.

Limited Scope of Revisional Court

Question whether the respondent 2 was a married wife of revisionist, is a question of fact and thus, this court cannot upset the finding of the trial court by entering into re-appreciation of evidence, unless it is shown such a finding is not based on evidence or some patent error of jurisdiction is shown. In the instant case, no such eventuality could be shown. In fact, if the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited.

Further, the Court added that in view of evidence on record, the grant of maintenance from the date of application cannot be said arbitrary or against law. The quantum of maintenance also appeared reasonable and appropriate.

“If a party deliberately delays the proceedings for long period, such party must not be allowed to take advantage of such tactics.”

 High Court found no illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order.

While parting with the decision, Court added that the Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. [Irshad Ali v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 92, decided on 08-01-2021]


Advocates who appeared on behalf of the parties:

 Counsel for Revisionist: Krishna Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

In our series of 2020 wrap-ups, let’s revisit and take a dive at some of our stories on family laws and how different High Courts dealt with the same involving some very significant rulings.

We have listed down Case briefs under sub-categories, of our coverage under the Family Law and its allied provisions.


[Allahabad High Court]

Custody of Minor

In minor’s custody case, where child is below 5 years of age, mother is preferred, but is there any exception to it? All HC explains

[Meenakshi v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1475, decided on 02-12-2020]

If a natural guardian faces criminal charges relating to death of spouse, can custody of children or visitation rights be granted? All HC discusses

[Shaurya Gautam v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1372, decided on 10-11-2020]

Decree of Eviction against Son

Can daughter-in-law be evicted without seeking decree of eviction against the son under S. 2(s) of Domestic Violence Act? All HC answers

[Sujata Gandhi v. S.B. Gandhi, 2020 SCC OnLine All 763, decided on 12-06-2020]


 [Bombay High Court]

Alimony

If the wife is earning something for livelihood, can the same be a ground to refuse alimony under S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act? Read Bom HC’s ruling reiterating SC’s decision

[Arpana Vijay Manore v. Dr Vijay TukaramManore, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 3925, decided on 09-12-2020]

Bigamy

Person committing offence under S. 494 IPC, must have married another woman or man during subsistence of his or her first marriage; Bom HC invokes power under S. 482 CrPC to meet ends of justice

[Rekha v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 291, decided on 13-02-2020]

 Cooling-off Period

Can “cooling-off period” under S. 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act be waived? Legal position discussed in a case of pregnant woman

[Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon v. Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao,  2020 SCC OnLineBom 2054, decided on 26-10-2020]

 Cruelty to Woman

Abuse of S. 498-A IPC by making vague allegations and roping in family members of husband: Courts to carefully scrutinize allegations

[Shabnam Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 1752, decided on 15-10-2020]

“Easy to accuse somebody of ill-treatment after someone dies, but not wise to convict somebody based on general statements”: Bom HC holds every cruelty is not an offence under S. 498-A IPC

[State of Maharashtra v. Shri Balu Ravji Abhang, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 307, decided on 20-02-2020]

Family members should not be dragged without specific evidence against them, otherwise, S. 498-A IPC is unfortunately misused as a weapon, says Bom HC

[State of Maharashtra v. Ashok, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 331, decided on 26-02-2020]

 Custody of Minor

Welfare of child as paramount consideration: Bom HC gives custody to father of minor for mother not being able to take care of the child

[Sashanka v. Prakash, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 3497, decided on 27-11-2020]

Domestic Violence & Jurisdiction of Courts

Does Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for relief under Ss. 18 to 22 of DV Act? Read what Bom HC held

[Hitesh Prakashmalji Mehta v. Aashika Hitesh Mehta, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 983, decided on 28-09-2020]

Second Marriage

Performing second marriage during pendency of an appeal is a breach under S. 15 of HMA, but would it amount to civil contempt? Bom HC analyses

[Kanchan v. Prashant Manikrao Bagade, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 911, decided on 08-09-2020]

 Unmarried Daughter (Maintenance)

Whether unmarried daughter who is major by age, entitled to claim maintenance from father till her marriage? Bom HC explains law in light of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act

[Sanjay J. Phagnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 3382, decided on 23-11-2020]

Widowed Daughter-in-Law (Maintenance)

Can a widowed daughter-in-law claim maintenance from the estate inherited by her father-in-law? Law explained

[Sardool Singh Sucha Singh Mathroo v. Harneet Kaur, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 927, decided on 07-09-2020]

 Wife having Independent Source of Income (Maintenance)

[S. 125 CrPC] Wife cannot be denied maintenance on ground of having a source of income: Restated by Bom HC

[Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLineBom 694, decided on 26-05-2020]


[Calcutta High Court]

Child Marriages

Alarming rise of child marriages during lockdown has given a strong impression that they may be in garb of child trafficking; Police to investigate

[Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Children, In Re., 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 1066, decided on 25-06-2020]

 Harassment over Complexion

Harassment by in-laws for woman’s black complexion is cruelty under S. 498-A IPC; Husband convicted for murdering wife over her black complexion

[Mazidul Miah v. State of W.B., 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 1077, decided on 25-06-2020]


[Chhattisgarh High Court]

Alienation of Property by Alleged Wife

Whether alienation of property by an alleged wife of a deceased is void? Chh HC analyses position in light of ‘Customs’ under Hindu Marriage Act

[Anirudh Prasad Kamal Sen v. Dashmat Bai Suryavanshi, Second Appeal No. 93 of 2009, decided on 28-08-2020]

Cause of Action

In a matrimonial dispute, cause of action can arise several times, even if the dispute is settled and case has been withdrawn

[Harsha Dewani v. Ashutosh Gupta, 2020 SCC OnLineChh 149, decided on 10-08-2020]


[Delhi High Court]

Adultery

Adultery can only be committed after marriage, allegation of having relationship before marriage cannot be a ground of adultery; Divorce petition dismissed

[Vishal Singh v. Priya, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 638, decided on 12-06-2020]

Affidavit of Assets, Income and Expenditure

Del HC updates Affidavit of Assets, Income & Expenditure to be filed at threshold of matrimonial disputes; Issues modified directions [Detailed Report: Read Directions]

[Kusum Sharma (5) v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 931, decided on 6-8-2020]

Cruelty & Desertion

Del HC analyses “A typical case that showcases as to what would amount to cruel behaviour on part of one spouse to utter detriment of other”

[Venkatesh Narasimhan v. V. Sujatha, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 571, decided on 01-05-2020]

Divorce Proceedings

Husband citizen and domicile of USA, Can he raise objections on divorce proceedings filed by wife in India? Del HC decrypts the law in light of catena of SC decisions

[Karan Goel v. Kanika Goel, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1319, decided on 12-10-2020]

 Impotency

Is making false allegation of impotency by wife against husband a ground for decree of divorce? Del HC determines

[Kirti Nagpal v. Rohit Girdhar, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1466, decided on 20-11-2020]

Maintenance

If interim maintenance by wife has already been secured under Domestic Violence Act, will application under S. 125 CrPC be maintainable? Del HC answers

[Rani v. Dinesh, Crl. Rev. P. 1091 of 2019 and Crl. M.A 13677 of 2020, decided on 02-12-2020]

Matrimonial Disputes

Del HC reiterates SC’s position on “duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes”

[Harish Kumar v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1635, decided on 04-12-2020]

 Remedy against Custody Orders

“No exception to remedy against orders of custody under Domestic Violence Act”: Del HC dismisses S. 482 CrPC petition in view of S. 29 DV Act

[Srisha Dinav Bansal v. Rajiv Bansal, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 764, decided on 20-07-2020]

Right to Privacy versus Right to Fair Trial

[S. 14 of Family Courts Act] In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial

[Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 672, decided on 30-06-2020]

Second Marriage & Custody of Children

Second marriage of a mother is by itself not sufficient to deprive her of custody of her biological child

[Faisal Khan v. Humera,  2020 SCC OnLine Del 572, decided on 1-5-2020]

Settlement Deed affecting Children’s Right to Maintenance

Is it lawful for a wife to agree to a settlement deed in the process of dissolution of marriage wherein she settles that her minor children will not claim maintenance in future? Court explains

[Vashno Jaishwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1504, decided on 20-11-2020]


[Gauhati High Court]

 Conjugal Life

Refusal to wear “sakha and sindoor” is clear intention that a hindu wife is unwilling to continue conjugal life: Divorce decreed to husband

[Bhaskar Das v. Renu Das, 2020 SCC OnLineGau 2954, decided on 19-06-2020]

 Maintenance

If a woman is divorced, will her status as a wife entitling her to maintenance under S. 125 CrPC change? Read Gau HC’s position

[Bijoy Seal v. Sefali Seal, 2020 SCC OnLineGau 4024, decided on 30-09-2020]

Special Marriage Act

If a marriage is first solemnised under the Special Marriage Act and later upon conversion to Islam, marriage is again solemnised under Mohammedan Law: Which law will prevail for dissolution of marriage? Gau HC to consider

[Md Makfur Rahman v. Malina Deb Barman, 2020 SCC OnLineGau 4645, decided on 23-04-2020]


[Gujarat High Court]

Permanent Alimony to a Muslim Woman

Will permanent alimony granted to a Muslim woman be conditional to her remarriage? Detailed report untangling significance of ‘Permanent Alimony’ & ‘Periodical Maintenance’

[Tarif Rashidbhai Qureshi v. Asmabanu, 2020 SCC OnLineGuj 711, decided on 19-03-2020]

Special Marriage Act

If marriage is registered under Special Marriage Act, is it necessary for the couple to take recourse of same law to sever ties permanently? Guj HC elucidates in a custody matter

[Chavda Twinkle v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLineGuj 1167, decided on 17-07-2020]


[Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Ancestral Property

Can wife claim maintenance under S. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 over ‘ancestral property’ of the husband? HP HC explains

[Kubja Devi v. Chhape Ram,  2020 SCC OnLine HP 1829, decided on 05-10-2020]


[Jharkhand High Court]

Desertion

‘Desertion’ has to be wilful and voluntary for a valid ground for divorce under S. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Legal principle “No one can take a benefit of his own fault” applied

[Sanjay Kumar v. Suman Kumari, 2020 SCC OnLineJhar 773, decided on 08-09-2020]


[Karnataka High Court]

Cruelty to First Wife

Though Shariat permits a Muslim man to practise polygamy, but would that amount to cruelty to first wife? Kar HC explains concept of Marital Cruelty

[Yusufpatel v. Ramjanbi, MFA No. 201154 of 2018 (FC), decided on 17-08-2020]


 [Kerala High Court]

Convenience & Welfare of Children over Wife

In matrimonial matters preference is to be given to convenience and welfare of children over wife: Ker HC dismisses application for transfer of case

[Nimi v. Ajith M.T., 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 4313, decided on 09-10-2020]

Cruelty

Wife’s persistent effort to separate husband from family amounts to cruelty: Divorce granted in favour of husband

[Ranjith P.C. v. Asha Nair. P, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1751 , decided on 20-05-2020]

 Dowry

Is there a limitation period for wife to claim property entrusted to in-laws given in form of dowry? Ker HC answers

[Sheela K.K. v. N.G. Suresh, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 4240, decided on 24-09-2020]

 Suppressing Material Facts & Marriage

If a wife obtains husband’s consent for marriage by suppressing material facts like cardiac ailments, would that amount to fraud? Ker HC explains whether marriage can be declared null & void

[Ajitha v. Harshan, Mat. Appeal No. 734 of 2012, decided on 25-09-2020]

 Transfer Petitions related to Matrimonial Disputes

While considering transfer petitions related to matrimonial disputes, the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of husband; Ker HC reiterates

[Kavitha v. Gopakumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 6098, decided on 30-11-2020]


[Madras High Court]

Customary Divorce

Can plea of customary divorce be considered as a valid defence while departmental proceeding for bigamy is initiated? Madras HC considers scope of defence under Service Rules

[Sudalaimai v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, WP (MD) No. 17504 of 2014, decided on 09-09-2020]

 Illegitimate Child [Maintenance]

Is an illegitimate child entitled to maintenance under S. 125 CrPC? Madras HC reiterates legal position

[Pachaimuthu v. Minor Vishanthini, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2677, decided on 01-10-2020]

Limitation Period for Domestic Violence Complaints

Limitation provided under CrPC is applicable to complaints under Domestic Violence Act: Madras HC rejects complaint filed after lapse of 1 yr 10 months

[N. Prasad v. Harithalakshmi, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1767, decided on 20-07-2020]

 Void Marriage

What is the essential condition for validity of any marriage? Detailed Report highlighting legality of marriage of a girl below 18 years of age

[Prakash v. State, Crl. A. No. 334 of 2014, decided on 30-11-2020]


[Orissa High Court]

Rights of a “lady” in Same-sex Couple Relationship

Same-sex couple have a right to live together outside wedlock; Rights of a woman enshrined in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to apply on the “lady” in the relationship

[Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha, 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 602, decided on 24-08-2020]


[Punjab & Haryana High Court]

Sapinda Prohibition

Whether partners falling in sapinda prohibition under HMA can stay in a live-in relationship? Parties argue while hearing in anticipatory bail

[Akhilesh v. State of Punjab,  2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2058, decided on 19-11-2020]

Section 498-A IPC, a weapon?

Disgruntled wives use provisions of S. 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield: P&H HC

[Amarjit Kaur v. Jaswinder Kaur, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 577, decided on 15-05-2020]

 Voidable Marriage

In case a marriage is solemnized in violation of age restriction, marriage is only voidable

[Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 759 , decided on 15-06-2020]


[Rajasthan High Court]

Theory of Homicidal Death

Allegation of woman set ablaze in view of dowry demand dismissed; Prosecution theory of homicidal death sheer exaggeration; finds Raj HC

[Gopal v. State of Rajasthan, DB Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2014, decided on 06-08-2020]


 [Telangana High Court]

Harassment or Cruelty

For invoking S. 304-B IPC, harassment or cruelty caused to a woman should have happened “soon before her death”

[Surender Singh v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine TS 874, decided on 06-07-2020]


[Tripura High Court]

Dissolution of Marriage of ST Couple

Will Hindu Marriage Act have application on a couple belonging to Scheduled Tribe notified under the Constitution for purpose of dissolution of marriage? Tripura HC explains

[Rupa Debbarma v. Tapash Debbarma, 2020 SCC OnLine Tri 425, decided on 09-09-2020]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

What amounts to irretrievable breakdown of marriage? Tripura HC discusses in a case where the couple lived apart for 13 continuous years

[Aparna Dey v. Alok Dey, 2020 SCC OnLine Tri 411, decided on 09-09-2020]

Lived like a Wife [Maintenance]

“Woman who lived like wife, cannot be deprived of maintenance”: Tripura HC grants maintenance to woman who “lived like wife” for 10 yrs

[Sri Bibhuti Ranjan Das v. Gouri Das, 2020 SCC OnLine Tri 280, decided on 07-07-2020]


[Uttaranchal High Court]

Medical Examination of Wife in Divorce Proceedings

Wife not eligible for medical examination of whether she can conceive or not during Divorce proceedings; Utt HC allows appeal

[Rashmi Gupta v. YogeshBabu, 2020 SCC OnLineUtt 339, decided on 01-07-2020]

 Mental Cruelty

Mental cruelty is no less than physical cruelty, wife causing mental cruelty to husband valid ground for dissolution of marriage; Utt HC dismisses appeal

[Anita Gaur v. Rajesh Gaur, 2020 SCC OnLineUtt 503, decided on 24-08-2020]


Also Read:

2020 Wrap Up — Flashback of Stories on Consumer Cases

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: Soumitra Saikia, J., observed that

“..a valid decree of divorce by itself is no ground to deny the maintenance to a divorced wife.”

The criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sought the quashment of the Judgment and Order.

Wife/OP had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from the petitioner/husband @ Rs 5000 per month, later the husband filed a petition seeking to reduce the maintenance allowance stating that there was a substantial loss of income and was facing financial hardship.

In the meanwhile, the divorce case was decreed in favour of the husband. By the said judgment, the marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i–a) and (i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Later, the husband’s petition seeking to reduce the maintenance allowance was allowed. The wife again preferred the revision petition stating that she decree of divorce would not automatically disentitle the wife from getting maintenance and the said revision petition was allowed by setting aside by remanding the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate Court.

Being aggrieved with the above, the husband filed the present criminal petition.

Analysis and Decision

On perusal of Section 125 and 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it revealed that legislature engrafted the said provisions for the benefit of the wife, a child and the parents of any person of any in order prevent them from becoming destitute.

In the instant matter, the concern is with regard to the maintenance in respect of a divorced wife.

“…true purport of the provisions of Section 125 is to ensure that in the event the husband fails to provide for adequate sustenance on an application made before the Magistrate, the sections empower the Magistrate to order the husband to provide for adequate maintenance for the benefit of the wife so as to prevent the wife from being reduced to a destitute or be compelled to live a life of beggary.”

Supreme Court consistently has held that a divorced wife would also be included in the definition of a wife as it defined under Section 125 CrPC.

“…responsibility of the husband towards a wife will not cease merely because a decree of divorce has been passed severing the marriage between the husband the wife.”

Decisions referred by the Court:

Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180; Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi,(2018) 12 SCC 748, Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 4 SCC 146.

Court upon perusal of the Supreme Court decisions stated that it is evident that Section 125 CrPC being beneficial legislation to provide for protection to the wife, a mere divorce between the husband and wife will not preclude the “divorced wife” from claiming and/or availing of the benefits available to a wife under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband cannot absolve his responsibility to maintain and to provide for the adequate maintenance to the wife unless there are evidences to support that the wife is no longer required to be maintained in view of certain changed circumstances.

Bench also added that the claim for maintenance of a divorced wife can only be defeated either on the ground that she has remarried or that she is able to maintain herself. 

“…a ‘divorce’ does not change the status of a wife in the context of Section 125 CrPC.”

“…power under Section 127(2) CrPC, can only be invoked by a magistrate for cancellation of maintenance granted earlier only when there are changed circumstances after grant of such maintenance under Section 125.”

In the instant matter, there was no change of circumstances, which required the magistrate to invoke its powers under Section 127(2) for cancellation of the order directing payment of maintenance.

High Court directed the trial court to decide the matter afresh. [Bijoy Seal v. Sefali Seal, 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4024, decided on 30-09-2020]


Advocates who appeared before the Court:

Advocate for the Petitioner: P J SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent:  K KALITA

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon, JJ., while addressing the instant matter, observed that:

The wife and children of a personnel of the Air Force who has sworn to put his life in peril deserve a treatment different from that of a civilian who has no obligation to sacrifice his life for the country.

Petitioner, a sergeant in the Indian Air Force (IAF) filed the petition in regard to the following:

  • impugning the Air Force Order issued by respondent 2 Chief of Air Staff
  • impugning the administrative order issued by the Chief of Air Staff, sanctioning maintenance claim against the petitioner.
  • Seeking maintenance, directing respondent 2 Chief of Air Staff to refund the amount of maintenance granted under the administrative order, to the son of the petitioner and payable to the respondent 5 i.e. wife of the petitioner.

What the petitioner alleged?

Petitioner’s wife left matrimonial home along with her son and refused to join the petitioner in spite of repeated efforts of the petitioner. Petitioner approached the family court for dissolution of marriage and further initiated custody proceedings for his son.

As a counterblast, wife of the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for maintenance and also approached the Court under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of a case under Sections 141, 149, 363, 504 & 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and his parents.

Wife of the petitioner also filed a false and fabricated case under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner and his parents but the proceedings in the criminal complaint, as well as the case under Section 498A of the IPC, were stayed by the Allahabad High Court.

Analysis and Decision

Petitioner’s counsel drew the Court’s attention to Sections 190, 191 and 191A of the Air Force Act, 1950 empowering the Central Government to make regulations for all or any of the purposes of the Act other than those specified in Section 189 and requiring the regulations so made to be published in the Gazette and to be laid before the Parliament.

Section 91(i), in exercise of powers whereunder the impugned AFO No. 03/2013 has been issued, shows the same as authorising deduction from pay and allowances of an officer of any sum required by order of the Central Government to be paid for the maintenance of his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child or towards the cost of any relief given by the said Government to the said wife or child.

Petitioner being a sergeant, the above-stated section would not apply to him.

Section 92(i) authorises deduction from the pay and allowances of an airman, of any sum required by order of the Central Government or any prescribed officer to be paid for the maintenance of his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child or towards the cost of any relief given by the said Government to the said wife or child.

The Court opined that once (a) there is a specific provision in the Air Force Act i.e. in Sections 91(i) and 92(i) thereof and to which there is no challenge, qua deduction from the pay and allowances, for payment of maintenance; (b) Rule 162, to which also there is no challenge, defines the ‘prescribed officer’ within the meaning of Section 92(i); and, (c) the Air Force Regulations in Regulation 917, to which also there is no challenge, provides that Air Force orders will be issued by the Chief of Air Staff, the impugned order has been issued in compliance of all the said provisions and there was no the need for the said order to be laid before the Parliament or to be notified/ratified इन accordance with Sections 190, 191 and 191A of the Act.

Just like the Courts draw their power to pass orders/decrees for payment of maintenance, from the statutes mentioned hereinabove, so does the Central Government and/or the prescribed officer draw power to award maintenance to wife and children of Air Force personnel from the provisions of the Air Force Act.

Next plea in the petition that was considered was, of the Air Force personnel being discriminated against vis-a-vis civilians, orders for payment of maintenance to wife and children whereagainst can be passed only by the Courts and not by the Central Government or the prescribed officer.

Regarding this, the Bench observed that:

Certainly it is not open to Air Force personnel, to have the privileges not available to civilians and reject the obligations, also not imposed on the civilians. The counsel for the petitioner also forgets that while the civilians can be punished only by the Courts of the land, the Air Force personnel can be tried and punished also by the Authorities under the Air Force Act. What is evident therefrom is, that personnel of the Air Force, form a class by themselves, distinct from the civilians.

Additional observations of the Court:

Sections 16 and 17 of the Air Force Act provides for all persons, enrolled as combatants, selected to hold a non- commissioned rank and subject to the Air Force Act, to be attested and which attestation is in the form of administration of oath containing a promise inter alia to obey all commands of any officer set over him, even to the peril of his life.

The said oath taken by the defence personnel, to the said extent is different from the oath required to be taken vide Articles 60, 69, 124 and 219 of the Constitution of India by the President, Vice-President, Judges of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the High Courts respectively, none of whom swear to place their life at peril for the service of the country.

Bench found no merit in the challenge by petitioner to AFO No. 3 of 2013. The said AFO did not make any legislative change and only guided the exercise of discretion and power vested by Sections 91(i) and 92(i) in the Central Government and the prescribed officer to make deductions from the salary and allowance for payment of maintenance to wife and children.

In Suneel v. Union of India 2003 SCC OnLine Del 810, question in the context of Army Act was considered and it was held that in view of the statutory provisions, the Authorities under the Army Act could not be debarred from making an order of maintenance in favour of wife and children of an Army personnel.[Sergeant Ajit Kumar Shukla v. Union of India,  2020 SCC OnLine Del 1590, decided on 10-11-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vireshkumar B. Mayani, JJ., while addressing the issue of grant of permanent alimony to a Muslim Woman noted the significant difference between permanent alimony and periodical maintenance.

An instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was filed at the instance of the original defendant (husband) and was directed against the judgment and decree passed by Principal Judge, Ahemdabad for a decree of divorce under the provisions of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Question for consideration:

Whether the Family Court committed any error in passing the order of permanent alimony in favour of the wife while granting the decree of divorce to the wife?

There are two types of alimony:

1. Given at the time of court proceedings- This is usually the maintenance amount.

2. Given at the time of legal separation- This can be given either in a lump sum or as a fixed monthly or quarterly payment or as per the requirements of the spouse.

Supreme Court on a creative and meaningful interpretation of the MWPRDA, 1986, upheld its constitutionality. It held that a Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of his divorced wife extending beyond the Iddat period.

In the Supreme Court decision of Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, (2010) 1 SCC 666, the question that fell for consideration was whether a Muslim Divorced wife would be entitled to receive the amount of maintenance from her divorced husband under Section 125 CrPC, and if yes, then through which forum.

In the above decision of the Supreme Court, it was held that petition under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable before the family court as long as the wife does not remarry. The amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC cannot be restricted for the Iddat period only.

Main Argument

The most significant submission on behalf of the appellant was that no provision exists in the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 for the maintenance or permanent alimony. Further, it was stated that Family Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order with respect to maintenance or permanent alimony once the suit is allowed and the marriage is dissolved at the instance of the wife.

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

The Muslim Women Act is “to protect the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by or have obtained a divorce from their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Hence the Muslim Women Act professes to deal with Muslim divorced women and their rights against their former husbands.

Family Court

Bench observed that, where a Family Court has been established, the power and the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to entertain an application for maintenance, even by a divorced Muslim wife, under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been taken away, either expressly or even by implication by the Muslim Women Act of 1986.

And once such an application is made to a Family Court under Section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act, and not to a Magistrate, the same has got to be disposed of by the Family Court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Muslim Women Act of 1986, including its Section 5, would have no manner of application.

Matrimonial Property

Further, it was stated that the right to maintenance and right in the matrimonial property are the consequences of the marriage or its dissolution. Those reliefs are incidental to the main relief of ‘dissolution of marriage’ and therefore, these reliefs are very much an integral part of the decree of ‘dissolution of marriage’.

Section 4 of the Act, 1986

It was also sought to be argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of Section 4 of the Act, 1986, the former husband had no liability to make any provision for the Post-Iddat period.

Bench observed that the right of maintenance given to the wife and the minor children under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, is in addition to the right, which the minor children are having under Muslim Law to get maintenance from the father. The law expects that the parties should not be driven to approach the different forums but in one forum itself, they should be granted whatever reliefs to which they are entitled.

Supreme Court in the decision of K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida, (2003) 4 SCC 166 was concerned with the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as to whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the properties of the parties not only of the subsisting marriage but also divorced parties and the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the reason for the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984, was to set up a Court to deal with all the disputes concerning with the Family and it is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a Court created specifically for the resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally.

Wife has remarried

Counsel submitted that the wife was remarried and in view of there was no question of any lump sum permanent alimony.

Bench observed that

A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to receive, from her husband, inter alia, “maintenance”, “reasonable and fair provision”, “Mahr” etc. under Section 3 of the Act, 1986.

Permanent Alimony

Bench stated that what is significant to note is that the relief of permanent alimony is a relief incidental to the granting of the substantive relief by the Court in the main proceeding. It is an incidental relief claimed in the main proceeding, though an application is necessary for claiming it.

The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the question whether a Muslim woman obtaining a divorce under the provisions of the Act, 1939 is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and it was held in Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509 that there are three distinct modes in which a dissolution of marriage can be brought about and Clause(b) of the Explanation to Section 125(1) envisages all the three modes, whether a wife is divorced unilaterally by the husband or where she obtains divorce under the other two modes, she continues to be a wife for the purpose of getting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.

The Supreme Court held that divorce resulting from the dissolution of marriage under the provision of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 is also a legal divorce under the Mohammedan law by virtue of the Statute (1939 Act).

Conclusion

Bench observed that when the Court would make an award of permanent alimony or for one-time payment, it is not founded on any stipulation that any part of the sum would be either actually refunded in whole or in part. Such sum is not granted on the condition against remarriage for all times to or for any particular period.

The permanent alimony in a way is an estimated sum in a lump sum to discharge the judgment debtor from his future liabilities unconditionally.

The grant of periodical payment by way of maintenance to a divorced wife is in recognition/obligation to the spouse to maintain her so long as she enjoys the continued status of a divorcee.

On remarriage status of divorcee comes to an end and she acquires another marital status as someone’s spouse. Under the Act, 1986 as under Section 125 CrPC, the wife includes a divorcee.

In view of the above discussion, it can be said that:

when the wife remarries, her claim of maintenance primarily comes to stand against her new husband coming into existence in a new relationship.

The proposition of law laid down by the Court should be looked into keeping in mind Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1986.

A divorced woman is entitled to ‘a reasonable and fair provision” and “maintenance” to be made and paid to her within and post the Iddat period by her former husband.

Point-wise Conclusion of the decision:

  • After the Act of 1939, a wife had a statutory right to obtain a divorce from her husband through the Court on proof of the grounds mentioned in the Act.
  • The ex-wife, having obtained a divorce from her erstwhile husband under the provisions of the Act, 1939 is entitled to the reasonable and fair provision under Section 3 of the Act, 1986.
  • The Family Courts Act has in its comprehension all community including the Muslims. All disputes between the Muslim community within the purview of the Family Courts Act are to be settled by the Family Courts.
  • Dispute contemplated by Section 3 of the Act, 1986 is within the purview and four corners of the Family Courts Act as the dispute under Section 3 of the Act, 1986 also relates to matrimonial relations between the parties.
  • Right of maintenance and right in the matrimonial property are the consequences of the marriage or its dissolution.
  • The Law contemplates that the husband has two separate and distinct obligations; (I) to make “reasonable and fair provision” for his divorcee wife and (ii) to provide “maintenance” for her. The obligation to make a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife is not restricted until the divorced wife remarries. It is within the jurisdiction of the Family Court to pass an order for a lump sum amount to be paid to the wife in the discharge of the obligation of the husband under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1986 and such order cannot be modified upon remarriage of the divorced Muslim wife.
  • Provision for permanent alimony is incidental to the granting of a decree or judicial separation, divorce or annulment of marriage.
  • The permanent alimony in a way is an estimated sum in a lump sum to discharge the husband from her future liabilities unconditionally.
  • If the wife gets remarried, her status of divorcee comes to an end and the liability of the husband to pay periodical maintenance would also come to an end.

Another significant observation of the High Court was which was placed by the counsel for the parties was that the appellant had remarried way back in the year 2014. Before the respondent herein instituted the proceedings in the Family Court for divorce, the husband had already remarried and raised a family. The appellant could do so because polygamy is permissible amongst the Muslim Community. It does not constitute an offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code.

The materials on record indicated that the husband hardly paid anything towards maintenance. The respondent had to leave her matrimonial home soon after the marriage, i.e., sometime in 2010. Ultimately, she was constrained to institute the proceedings of divorce in the Family Court. Even during the pendency of such proceedings, nothing was paid to the wife. The wife, ultimately, succeeded before the Family Court in getting the marriage dissolved and was also successful in getting an order of permanent alimony. The husband now cannot turn around and say that he is not liable to pay the lump sum amount because the respondent is remarried.

Hence, in Court opinion, the Family Court’s line of reasoning ad the ultimate conclusion that was drawn by the family court was just and proper.

Therefore the appeal was dismissed.[Tarif Rashidbhai Qureshi v. Asmabanu, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 711, decided on 19-03-2020]


Advocates who appeared for the parties:

Nishant Lalakita for Appellant 1

Javed S Qureshi for Appellant 1

SP Majmudar for Defendant 1

Shashvata U Shukla for Defendant 1

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., addressed a matter wherein the question was considered whether an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 after having secured interim maintenance by an order passed in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable?

The instant petition impugned Family Court’s order whereby the petitioner’s application for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was rejected.

The said impugned order by the Family Court indicated that the petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that the petitioners had been granted interim maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month in proceedings filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Court held that since the petitioners had been awarded interim maintenance for the same period and no appeal had been preferred against the said interim order, an application under Section 125 CrPC for seeking interim maintenance for the same period was not maintainable.

Family Court also added that it was not open for the petitioners to claim maintenance from two different courts in different proceedings for the same period. And, in the event the petitioners were of the view that the amount of interim maintenance granted was insufficient, the appropriate remedy would be to approach the concerned court for modification or enhancement of the interim maintenance.

Petitioner counsel, Dr Amit George contended that the family court’s reasoning was erroneous.

In view of the above-said position, the question to be considered by the bench is as follows:

Whether it is open for the petitioners to maintain an application under Section 125 CrPC after having secured interim maintenance by an order passed in proceedings under the DV Act?

Bench found merit in petitioner counsel’s contention with regard to the Family Court’s order being erroneous.

The question whether an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC could be maintained for the same period for which interim maintenance has been awarded under the DV Act, is no longer res integra.

In Delhi High Court’s decision of R.D. v. B.D., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9526 it was held that an order for interim maintenance granted under the DV Act does not preclude an applicant to claim maintenance for the same period in separate proceedings.

Court observed that although a separate application seeking interim maintenance for the same period is maintainable, the Court would of necessarily bear in mind the interim maintenance awarded in the other proceedings while considering the merits of the application.

The above-stated similar view was expressed in the Judgment of Niharika Yadav v. Manish Kumar Yadav, Crl. Rev. P. 755 of 2018, decided on 18-12-2019.

Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the family court to consider the petitioner’s application for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.[Rani v. Dinesh, Crl. Rev. P. 1091 of 2019 and Crl. M.A 13677 of 2020, decided on 02-12-2020]


Advocates who appeared in the matter:

Petitioners: Dr Amit George, Anmol Acharya, Piyo Hardo Jaimon, Rayadurgam, Bharat, Advocates.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Nitin W. Sambre, J., while setting aside the orders pronounced by the Courts below observed that,

“the law already gives a remedy to claim maintenance to a daughter under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act even if she is a major by age and unmarried and dependent on her father.”

The instant application was moved by the applicant–father under the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the Judicial Magistrate’s Order allowing interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Applicant’s Counsel, Runwal invited the Court’s attention to Section 125 of CrPC, particularly clause (b) & (c) of sub-section 1.

According to the counsel, the father has an obligation to maintain the daughter who is not married, however, the said provision does not confer any right in major daughter to claim an interim after such daughter attains majority and if she is physically or mentally not suffering from any abnormality or injury.

Court’s attention to the provisions of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was also invited. Further, he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Abhilasha v. Prakash, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 736.

Respondent — Daughter urged that the act of trial court of not deciding the application for maintenance for years together cannot be viewed or come to the help of the applicant particularly when Statute contemplates an obligation on the applicant-father to pay maintenance to a minor daughter pursuant to the provisions of Section 125(1) of CrPC.

Analysis and Decision

If the scheme of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 125 of CrPC is considered, what is appreciated is, legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority who by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, if unable to maintain herself, can claim maintenance from father or a person who has sufficient means and who has neglected or refused to maintain.

What is required to be appreciated in the instant case is that even if the respondent — daughter who has attained majority and she is already getting expenses as was ordered in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and interim maintenance.

In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Abhilasha v. Prakash, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 736, it was made clear that under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, right of an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute. Such right is granted under the personal law which such daughter has every right in law to enforce against her father. As such, right under Sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the said provisions is recognized to be existing to claim maintenance after she attains majority till her marriage, from her father.

“Unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father till she is married even though she has become major which right is recognized under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.”

Court stated that a daughter can claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act even if she is major by age and unmarried and dependent on her father.

Magistrate failed to appreciate the above-stated intricacies of the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) of CrPC and right of a daughter under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Further, the Bench observed that the Courts below committed an error in awarding interim maintenance to major daughter in the exercise of powers under Section 125 CrPC.

Hence, in view of the above, the present application needs to be allowed.[Sanjay J. Phagnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3382, decided on 23-11-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Jyoti Mulmani J., allowed the revision petition on grounds of failure to ascertain and understand the material propositions involved in the case.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 28-02-2007 at Gayathri Mangalya Mandira, B.H. Road, Shimoga as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. They lived blissfully for some time however was constrained to leave apart from respondent after some time. Thereafter she filed a petition under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was thereby allowed and compensation granted. Aggrieved by which, appeal was preferred by both parties which was clubbed and the impugned order upheld. Later, a petition as filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which was dismissed as non-maintainable. Aggrieved by this order, present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be set aside as the ground for rejection of the petition that the petitioner had filed petition under provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 and thus petitioners cannot file another petition under Section 125 CrPC is wholly unsuitable in law.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order has reached finality as petitioners have not preferred a further appeal before any other courts.

The Court observed that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC and not under Section 127 of the Code. There has been an error in the impugned order in not appreciating the distinction between the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and Cr. PC as the petitioner is not seeking enhancement of maintenance.

The Court before disposing off the petition remanded the matter to reconsider the application filed by petitioner under Section 125 CrPC.

In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside.[D.A. Divya v. M. Yashwanth, R.P.F.C. No. 63 of 2016, decided on 02-11-2020]


 Arunima Bose, Editorial  Assistant has put this story together