Section 125 CrPC

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: S.K. Awasthi, J. contemplated a revision application under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. In the instant application, the applicant was directed to pay Rs 3000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Facts leading to the filing of this revision application were that respondent-wife moved an application under Section 125 CrPC against the applicant for grant of a maintenance amount, she alleged that after some time of the marriage, the applicant persistently made a demand of dowry from the respondent; and he used to harass her. Since then, she was residing in the house of her mother. She does not had any source of income thus, she found it difficult to maintain herself, whereas the applicant had 10 bighas of agricultural land and he was also engaged in the business of selling cattle, thereby earning Rs 1,00,000 per annum. Therefore, a prayer was made by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month before the Family Court. The said application was partly allowed vide the impugned order and the Family Court had directed the applicant to pay Rs 3,000 per month towards the maintenance of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the fixation of a maintenance amount, the applicant had preferred this revision application.

The applicant-husband contended that the marriage was solemnized in 2015 as per Muslim Rituals and Customs. It was further submitted that the respondent had earlier registered a case under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but the matter was amicably settled between them but subsequently, the respondent again deserted him.

The counsel for the applicant, M.K. Sharma, submitted that the respondent was not entitled to receive any maintenance as she had deserted the applicant without any reason. It was highlighted that the respondent did not want to live in a joint family and if the applicant arranged for a separate residence she was willing to return.

Court on such contention by the applicant observed that, the Family Court had committed an error of law in allowing the application for grant of maintenance, as the case was not in favor of the respondent. The Court stated that, the respondent had accepted in her statement that earlier she lodged FIR against the applicant and his parents for the commission of the said offence. However, later on, she compromised the matter and returned back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she again left her matrimonial house, in her cross-examination in which she categorically stated that she was ready to live with the applicant if the applicant makes arrangement for their separate residence. The actions of the respondents were found contradictory. Hence the revision was allowed and the order was cancelled.[Aarif v. Shajida, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1379, decided on 04-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Rakesh Kumar Jain and Harnaresh Singh Gill, JJ. allowed an appeal asking for entitlement to permanent alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11-6-2012 as per Hindu Sikh rites and rituals. The respondent-husband was a widower whereas the appellant wife who had claimed herself to be a spinster was already married. A petition was filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Act for annulment of marriage alleging that the factum of earlier marriage was not disclosed to him at the time of their marriage was on 11-6-2012. The learned trial court concluded that at the time of marriage by the appellant with the respondent, she was already having a spouse and, therefore, a decree under Section 11 of the Act was passed against her declaring her marriage null and void.

Anil Chawla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is entitled to permanent alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Act. He basically relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005) 2 SCC 33 in which it was held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant alimony was not restricted to judicial separation or divorce and encompassed all kind of decrees such as restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, declaring marriage as null and void under Section 11, annulment of marriage as voidable under Section 12 and Divorce under Section 13.

Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent, Veneet Sharma, submitted that once the marriage of the appellant with the respondent had been held to be null and void after the decree had been passed under Section 11 of the Act, the question of award of permanent alimony did not arise at all. To further his arguments, the learned counsel cited Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, 1988 (1) HLR 375. Relying on Savitaben Somabhai Bhaitya v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 190, he contended that in the said case though, the dispute was in regard to the award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but it was held by the Supreme Court that marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse was a complete nullity in the eyes of law and she was therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code or the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court observed that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra, (2005) 2 SCC 33was deciding a specific issue as to whether Section 25 of the Act would be applicable in the decree passed under Section 11 of the Act which was not the issue before the Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya (supra) in which Section 125 CrPC was in issue before the Supreme Court

Citing Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407, in which it was held that the binding nature of a decision would extend to only observation on the point raised and decided by the Court, the Court held that the present case was governed by the Ramesh Chandra case.

In view of the above, the Court allowed the present appeal only to the extent that the question of law which was framed by the Court holding that the appellant would be entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the decree has been passed under Section 11 of the Act. The Court accordingly remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the application under Section 25 of the Act, to be filed by the appellant before it for the purpose of seeking permanent alimony. [Sukhbir Kaur v. Sukhdev Singh, FAO-M No. 35 of 2016 (O&M), decided on 06-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the order of the appellate court whereby it had dismissed her appeal for enhancement of the amount of maintenance for her and her daughter.

The petitioner filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband alleging that she was turned out of the matrimonial home on account of the failure of bringing enough dowry. The trial court, prima facie assessed the husband’s income at Rs 30,000 per month and awarded interim maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner sought enhancement of the amount but the appellate court dismissed her appeal.

The petitioner, who was represented by Lal Singh Thakur and Sudhir Tewatia, Advocates, contended that the court below erred in not appreciating that the husband had several businesses and he misled the court by not disclosing his correct income. In support thereof, the petitioner placed on record several website listings showing the businesses that the husband was engaged in. Per contra, the husband, who was represented by Kunal Rawat, Advocate, submitted that his income was only between Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000.

The High Court, after perusing the record, held that the appellate court erred in placing the burden of proof on the petitioner and erred in holding that she has not placed the details of the contract with regard to the business of the husband. The listings placed on various websites, prima facie showed a turn over of Rs 50 lakhs to Rs 1 crore per annum. It was reiterated that at the stage of assessment of interim maintenance, the court has to only form a prima facie opinion.

Furthermore, placing reliance on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, it was held: “The rationale for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as expounded by the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh applies on all fours to the grant of maintenance under the DV Act.”

 In view of the matter, the Court enhanced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs 10,000 to Rs 30,000 per month.[Manju Sharma v. Vipin, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8960, decided on 01-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J. dismissed an application filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he refused to stay the petition filed by his former wife for the execution of the maintenance order granted in her favour by the Magistrate.

By the order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Magistrate had directed the petitioner to pay Rs 3000 + Rs 800 per month to his former wife. Subsequent to that order, the petitioner obtained an ex-parte divorce decree against his former wife. After the said decree, the petitioner filed an application under Section 25, praying for alteration/modification or revocation of the maintenance order on the ground that he is not liable to pay to his former wife as no domestic relationship between them subsist.

Before the High Court, the petitioner was represented by Siva Prosad Ghose, Chandra Bhanu Sinha and Rohit Kumar Shaw, Advocates. Per contra, the former wife was represented by Anand Kesari and Sekhar Mukherjee, Advocates.

After referring to the relevant provisions of the DV Act along with Section 125 CrPC, and a conspectus of cases on the subject, the High Court observed: “Decree of divorce does not deprive the wife of the relief granted in her favour under the provisions of the Act of 2005. After decree of divorce, the Opposite Party 2 has become a divorced wife.”

The Court was of the opinion that our law recognises the right of a divorced wife to get maintenance till her remarriage, under Section 125 CrPC. The DV Act provides additional rights and remedies to the aggrieved person.

Finally, it was noted: “Existence of domestic relationship is not needed to execute the order granted under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and the divorced wife who got an order of maintenance and other relief under the Act of 2005 prior to the decree of divorce is entitled to execute the same if she is unable to maintain herself and she has not remarried and for other reasons.”

In such view of the matter, the Court decided the application against the petitioner, and accordingly dismissed the same.[Krishnendu Das Thakur v. State of W.B., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 969, decided on 28-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. entertained an appeal by the appellant-wife under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned judgment granting divorce passed by Principal Judge of Family Court.

Facts giving rise to this appeal were, the respondent had filed a suit earlier under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was decreed already. When the marriage was solemnized between the parties, the respondent was working as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and it was a smooth sail for both of them. Subsequently, respondent-husband filed for divorce and for dissolution of marriage on the grounds that appellant was suffering from epilepsy prior to marriage and such essential fact was not disclosed to him, the appellant also suffered from different ailments which served as a hindrance, physically and mentally in their prosperous marriage. But the actual ground on which suit was filed for divorce was cruelty and desertion.

The Court observed that parties are living separately for a long time, the issues framed by the Family Court were sufficient to grant a divorce in this particular case. It was also observed that the Family Court found that appellant suffered from epilepsy and was treated for the same in addition to it she also suffered from tuberculosis, and such physical suffering of the appellant served as mental cruelty upon the husband. The expert opinion stated that due to such ailments the appellant was not in a fit state to conceive a child. The Court appreciated that such ailments were not relevant grounds to prove cruelty and to dissolve the marriage prime facie but non-disclosure of such important facts before marriage led to cruelty which is a proper ground for divorce.

The Court stated that there was enough evidence before the court below to establish that there was cruelty on the part of the appellant/wife, such as threatening the husband to falsely implicate in criminal cases and making a complaint to the superior officers of the husband. The wife had also made unnecessary allegations against the respondent before the Commanding Officer, which lowered his esteem in the eyes of his superior officer.

Hence, the Court awarded permanent alimony and disposed the application of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, it also found that there was no need to interfere with the Order of Family Court and setting aside the divorce decree.[Himani v. Rohit Bisht, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 448, decided on 13-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the family court whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a monthly sum of Rs 2000 each to his wife and child towards their maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The wife had left petitioner’s home due to alleged torture inflicted upon her and thereafter she filed an application under Section 125 claiming maintenance which was allowed by the family court in the terms above. The petitioner was a Government Servant earning a monthly salary of about Rs 22,000.

The High Court noted that while the wife was staying at her parental house, she was not provided maintenance which amounted to negligence in the sense that the petitioner was bound to maintain the wife and the child, which is a settled legal position. It was also noted that the allegation that the wife was working in a school and earning money could not be established by the petitioner and no specific evidence to that effect was laid by him. It was observed: “In the absence of any specific evidence, it cannot be held that the wife/respondent was earning sufficient amount to maintain herself. That being so, in the absence of any specific evidence as to the income of the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband is bound to maintain his wife and the child fathered by him.”

In that view of the matter, the Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the family court. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed. [Jotirmoy Kalita v. Jonamoni Kalita, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 2245, Order dated 07-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. partly allowed a revision petition against the order of the trial court passed under Section 125 CrPC holding that the trial court erred in equalising the effort of both parents in the upbringing of their child.

The petitioner and the respondent got divorced in 2007. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for herself and the minor child born from the wedlock. The trial court did not grant any maintenance to the petitioner holding that she was employed with an MNC and could maintain herself. It, however, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 per month towards the maintenance of the child. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed for the revision of the trial court’s order.

The High Court agreed with the finding of the trial court as far as the petitioner was concerned. It held that the petitioner could maintain herself. However, in regard to the maintenance of the child, it was held that the trial court’s approach of holding both parents equally liable to pay towards the maintenance of the child was not right. It was observed: “It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child. A mother who has custody of a child not only spends money on the upbringing of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child… No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two.”

It was further held that the trial court should have awarded the maintenance from the date of filing of the application rather than the date of the order. Resultantly, the amount of maintenance to be paid by the respondent for maintenance of the child was increased to Rs 20,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC.[Lopamudra Bhuyan v. Surajit Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8267, dated 30-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., reiterated that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 CrPC are independent of each other and have different scope.

The parties, though married, were living separately. The wife had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC wherein she was granted interim maintenance of Rs 1.20 lakhs per month. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 23 of the DV Act seeking, inter alia, monetary relief under Section 20. However, her application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that she had already been granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and all her claims were considered by the family court while granting the same. The wife filed an appeal against the order of the trial court, which was allowed and the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed the present petition.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for the husband, submitted that the Appellate Court erred in passing the impugned order as maintenance was already granted to the wife. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the wife that she suffered domestic violence and was thus entitled to monetary relief. The wife was represented by Madhav Khurana and Trisha Mitta, Advocates.

Noting that the scope of Section 20 of the DV was much wider than that of Section 125 CrPC, the High Court observed: “While Section 125 CrPC talks only of maintenance, Section 20 DV Act stipulates payment of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of the domestic violence including but not limited to loss of earning, medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of aggrieved person.”

It was categorically stated: “an order under Section 20 DV Act is not restricted by an order under Section 125 CrPC.” As such, the trial court was held to have erred in not appreciating the distinction between the two provisions. In such view of the matter, the High Court did not find infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. [Shome Nikhil Danani v. Tanya Banon Danani, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8016, decided on 11-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had recalled its earlier order and restored the petition for maintenance filed by the respondent-wife.

The wife had filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The trial court had initially awarded interim maintenance of Rs 2000 per month. The proceedings pending from 2003-2012. On 08-10-2012, the wife was not present before the trial court, Her father prayed for exemption on the ground that she was an asthma patient and therefore couldn’t come to the court. However, the trial court rejected the prayer and closed her evidence. Since there was no evidence on record to prove the factum of marriage between the respondent and the petitioner, the trial court dismissed the wife’s petition. She filed an application seeking a recall of the said order which was allowed by the trial court and her petition was restored. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed the present revision petition.

Abhimanyu Kampani and Samarth Teotia, Advocates appeared for the husband. Per contra, the wife was represented by Manika Tripathy Pandey, Ashutosh Kaushik and Brahm Kumar Pandey, Advocacies.

As per the High Court, the trial erred in not appreciating that there was no dispute about factum of marriage between the parties. Perusing the grounds mentioned in the present revision petition the Court observed: “The averments in the Revision Petition itself establishes that there is no dispute with regard to factum of marriage. Even if assuming there is no evidence on record, Trial Court can still pass an order of maintenance, if there are admissions on record. In the present case, Trial Court has dismissed the petition only on the ground that factum of marriage has not been proved.” 

In the Court’s opinion, to accept at this stage, the plea of the husband and the wife should have filed an appeal, would amount to gross harassment of the wife as the Judgment of the trial court would anyway be set aside for the asking. Also, referring to the wife’s medical records, the Court was of the view that she had sufficient cause for being not able to appear before the trial court. Therefore, the present revision petition was dismissed. [Surender Singh Arya v. Meenu Arya, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7998, decided on 05-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., modified the trial court’s order awarding maintenance to the petitioner-wife and directed the respondent-husband to the pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner impugned the trial court’s order whereby maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month was awarded to her. It is pertinent to note that by the impugned order, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance from the date of the order. Nitin Rai Sharma and Sanjeet, Advocates for the petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in note awarding maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

After discussing the nature of maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC, the High Court relied on Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 and Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Ramesh Chandra Vyas, (2015) 2 SCC 385, and observed: “When the trial court comes to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to an award of maintenance, the assessment, in fact, relates back to the date of the application. When the assessment relates back to the date of the application then there have to be compelling circumstances for the trial court to restrict the award of maintenance to a period post the date of the application.” Noting that the trial court did not record any reason to award maintenance from the date of the order, the High Court modified the impugned order and directed the respondent to pay the maintenance from the date of the application filed by the petitioner. [Nisha Saifi v. Mohd. Shahid, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7902, decided on 03-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. disposed of a petition filed in a matrimonial dispute by allowing the petitioner (wife) to prove additional documents in the matter of an application seeking maintenance from the respondent (husband) under Section 125 CrPC.

Earlier, the trial court had dismissed the wife’s application on the ground that she was not able to establish that she withdrew from the society of her husband for a reasonable cause. The trial court noticed that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the allegations of cruelty against the husband made by the wife.

R.K. Narang, Advocate for the wife prayed to prove copies of several complaints made to various authorities and also medical records showing injuries caused by the husband. It was submitted that these documents, which were not available with the wife during the trial, had now been obtained from the authorities concerned. Per contra, Akhilesh Kr Singh, Advocate appearing for the husband submitted that the complaints were false and frivolous.

Keeping in view the entirety of the case, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court. The wife was granted an opportunity to file and prove the additional documents before the trial court. She was also permitted to summon the record from the authorities where original of such documents may be available. As, consequently, trial court’s order fixing interim maintenance stood received. [Beena Kumari v. Manoj Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7237, dated 21-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed a revision petition filed by the husband against the judgment of the trial court whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC impugning the proceedings filed by the wife on the ground of territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Sanjay S. Chhabra with Satish Chaudhary, Advocates for the petitioner argued that the present application by the wife under Section 125 CrPC was not maintainable at Delhi because in all proceedings except the present one she had mentioned her residential address at Aligarh, U.P. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the wife by Saurabh Soni with Mannat Singh, Advocates that she was residing in Delhi with her brother since 2008.

The High Court perused Section 126(1) CrPC which deals with the place of the institution of proceedings under Section 125. It was observed, “Section 126(1) does not contemplate permanent place of residence. Even a place where the wife is for the time being residing would confer jurisdiction on such a court, where she is residing. However, residence temporarily acquired solely for conferring jurisdiction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 126(1).”In view of the law that wife can maintain a petition under Section 125 at any place where she is residing and the fact that she placed on record proof that reflected her address at Delhi, it was held that the trial court did not commit any error in rejecting husband’s application. The petition was dismissed for being without merit.[Sachin Gupta v. Rachna Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6632, dated 21-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. directed the parties to appear before the trial court for fresh consideration of an application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the wife, son and daughter of the respondent.

Earlier the application for grant of maintenance was rejected by the trial court. In regard to son and daughter, the rejection was on the ground that they were major. While in regard to the wife, rejection was on the ground that she was employed and earning. This finding was based on the report of one Bajaj Detective Agency employed by the respondent which stated that the wife was employed as a Lab Assistant in Safdarjung Hospital.

Umesh Sinha and Anil Kumar Singh, Advocates for petitioners contended that even daughters are entitled to maintenance till their marriage and thus challenged the rejection of the application by the trial court.

The High Court noted the admitted position that at the time filing the application, the son was a minor. The daughter was 23 years but the fact whether she was earning and able to maintain herself was not considered. Furthermore, in regard to the wife, perusal of the detective’s report showed that the above-mentioned finding was not based on any foundational document, fact or evidence. it was also noted that the parties had not filed their income affidavit before the Court. On such facts and circumstances, the Court held that the impugned order was not sustainable and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The parties were directed to file their affidavit of income and expenditure in the format laid down in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6793. [Kamlesh Sharma v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6529, decided on 16-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Bench of H.S. Madaan, J., allowed an application seeking transfer of Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurugram.

The facts of the case are there was a divorce proceeding going on between the parties. The petitioner contended that she was aged about 23 years and was to take care of infant child of four months and that she did not have any source of income and had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC against her husband-respondent seeking maintenance. Under such circumstances, she contended that it was difficult for her to travel from Gurugram where she was residing with her parents to Ferozepur Cantt to attend the dates of hearing in the Court there.

Respondent contended that the personal appearance of the petitioner was not required in the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she could be represented through counsel there, therefore, the application should be dismissed.

That Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the application. [Ekta Nagpal v. Yashveen Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 17, decided on 08-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. disposed of a petition holding that the petitioner (wife) was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for a period prior to the grant of divorce.

The petitioner and the respondent (husband) were married. They were living separately since 2004. Divorce was granted in 2015 on an application filed by the respondent on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion by the wife. The decree of divorce was upheld by the Supreme Court. Prior to that in 2007, the petitioner had applied under Section 125 CrPC for interim maintenance. By the impugned judgment, the trial court dismissed the application for maintenance on petitioner’s failure to show that she had sufficient cause to live separately.

S.K. Srivastava and Gurjeet Singh, Advocates for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment while Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal with Sidharth Chopra and Shaini Bharadwaj, Advocates representing the respondent supported it.

The High Court referred to Section 125(4)which states that wife is not entitled to receive maintenance is not entitled to receive maintenance if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband. Relying on Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180, the Court held that as the divorce decree was passed on ground of desertion which was upheld by Supreme Court, the petitioner was clearly disentitled to maintenance under Section 125. However, it was cleared that she could still file application for maintenance provided she is able to satisfy the condition of Section 125(1)(a) that she is unable to maintain herself. [Archita v. Sunil Seth, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6484, Order dated 11-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sunil Gaur, J. upheld the order of the trial court directing DNA testing of the petitioner.

DNA testing was ordered to ascertain paternity of minor child whose right to claim maintenance was disputed by petitioner on the ground that he was not the natural father of the child in question.

Shalini Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that he disputed that he was married to Respondent 1 and there was no proof that the child in question was born from their wedlock.

The High Court relied on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576 where Supreme Court reiterated that DNA is an accurate test. In the present case, the Court noted that occasion to pass the impugned order arose while considering an application under Section 125 CrPC which requires payment of maintenance even to an illegitimate minor child. It was held that in such situation, conclusive proof of marriage could not be made the basis to repel the impugned order. The impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity and thus, the petition was dismissed. [Vijay Kumar v. Renu, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6458, Order dated 08-01-2019]

Law made Easy

[Disclaimer: This note is for general information only. It is NOT to be substituted for legal advice or taken as legal advice. The publishers of the blog shall not be liable for any act or omission based on this note]

Introduction

In India, beneficial provisions for maintenance of children and parents are provided under various Acts. Objective of such provisions is to achieve a social purpose and to prevent vagrancy and destitution and to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy mechanism for providing support and maintenance to children and parents.

These provisions along with important cases are discussed below:

Statutory Provisions

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26  – During the proceedings under the Act, the court may pass orders with respect to the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. Under this Act, both parents (father as well as mother or either of them) are liable to maintain the children as ordered by the court. While making such orders, the court takes into account wishes of the children, as far as possible. Such orders and provisions may be altered from time to time. Any application in respect to maintenance and education of minor children during pendency of proceedings under the Act has to be decided within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent, as far as possible.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 20 – A Hindu male or female is bound to maintain his or her legitimate/illegitimate minor children and aged/infirm parents. Aged or infirm parent (which includes childless stepmother) or unmarried daughter have to be maintained if they are unable to maintain themselves. Section 23 sub-section (2) states that while determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded to children or aged or infirm parents, the court shall consider the following:

(a) position and status of the parties; (b) reasonable wants of the claimants; (c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so; (d) claimants income and value of property held by him, if any; etc.

If a person ceases to be a Hindu (changes his religion), he/she cannot claim maintenance under this Act [Section 24]. The amount of maintenance may be modified if there is a change in circumstances warranting so [Section 25].

Under this Act, even the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain his/her “dependants” out of his/her estate inherited by them [Section 22]. Dependents include deceased person’s minor son, unmarried daughter, widowed daughter, minor illegitimate son, minor illegitimate daughter [Section 21].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Magistrate may order a person to make monthly allowance for maintenance in a case where any person who despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain – (i) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child who is unable to maintain itself; or  (ii) legitimate or illegitimate major child (not being a married daughter) unable to maintain itself due to any physical or mental abnormality/injury; or (iii) married daughter till she attains majority if her husband is not able to maintain her; or (iv) his/her father or mother who are unable to maintain themselves. This section also makes a provision for maintenance during the pendency of proceedings regarding monthly allowance for maintenance. Also, application for interim maintenance during pending proceedings is to be decided by the Magistrate, as far as possible, within sixty days of the date of service of notice of application to such person. A person who fails to comply with the order of the Magistrate without showing sufficient cause may also be sent to prison. The order of maintenance passed under this section may be altered by the Magistrate on proof of change in circumstances [Section 127].

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Section 3 – A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for children born to her for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children. It does not matter if the children were born before or after the divorce, the former husband is liable to pay maintenance. If the former husband fails to comply with the order passed by Magistrate without showing sufficient reason, he may have to suffer imprisonment up to one year.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Section 4 – Parent (father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, whether senior citizen or not) or grand-parent who is unable to maintain himself is entitled to claim maintenance from one or more of his adult children (son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does not include a minor). Obligation of the children to maintain their parents extends to such needs of the parents which will allow them to lead a normal life. Additionally, this Act also makes provision for maintenance of childless senior citizens (who has attained the age of sixty years or above) by their relatives. The “relative” means any legal heir of childless senior citizen who is in possession of his property or would inherit it after his death, but it does not include a minor.

If the parents or senior citizens are incapable of applying for monthly allowance for maintenance themselves, in that case, an application can be made through any other person or organisation authorised by them. Such an application has to be decided by Maintenance Tribunal within a maximum period of 120 days from the date of service of notice to children/relative. If children/relative fails to comply with the orders of the Tribunal, this may result in imprisonment upto one month. [Section 5]. The Tribunal may order the children/relative to make a monthly allowance at a rate deemed fit by the Tribunal. However, the maximum amount of maintenance cannot exceed Rs 10,000 per month. [Section 9]. The order of maintenance may be altered by the Tribunal on proof of change in circumstances [Section 10].

Cases

Children of void marriage entitled to maintenance

A child born out of a void marriage between a woman and a man who already has a wife is to be treated as a legitimate child who is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, Bakulabai v. Gangaram, (1988) 1 SCC 537.

Father to maintain the unmarried daughter

An unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself is entitled to claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The father is obliged to maintain her unmarried daughters even if they are living separately with their mother, Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7.

Daughter to be maintained until she gets married even after attaining majority

Daughter is entitled to maintenance under CrPC when read with Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 even after attaining majority but till her marriage, Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, (2002) 5 SCC 422.

Hindu earning mother is also obliged to maintain children

Both, a Hindu divorcee father and a Hindu divorcee earning mother are obliged to contribute for maintenance of their children under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Father is not exclusively responsible to maintain children regardless of mother being affluent, Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266.

CrPC applies only when there is neglect or refusal to maintain despite having sufficient means

A case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC arises only when a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor children who are unable to maintain themselves, Amarendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul, (2009) 8 SCC 359.

Maintenance under CrPC & 1986 Act runs parallel (Muslim children entitled to maintenance under CrPC)

The benefit under Section 125 CrPC is available to all children irrespective of religion. Right under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is that of the mother to claim maintenance for children for two years from their date of birth and is distinct and independent of the right to maintenance under CrPC to minor children unable to maintain themselves, Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6 SCC 233.

Daughter is also obliged to maintain parents

Along with a son, Section 125 CrPC imposes liability even on daughter whether married or unmarried, having sufficient means to pay maintenance to her parents who are unable to maintain themselves, Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278.

When can a stepmother claim maintenance from her stepson

A childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is incapable of supporting and maintaining her, Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479.

Conditions for grant of maintenance to parents and senior citizens under 2007 Act

Senior citizens, including parents, will be entitled to maintenance under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 if only they are unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or out of the income from the property owned by them, M. Venugopal v. DM, Kanyakumari, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 5642.

Further Suggested Reading

1. Sumeet Malik – Adoption and Maintenance Laws Manual [Buy Here]

2. Surendra Malik and Sudeep Malik – Supreme Court on Marriage & Divorce, Cruelty/Dowry Death, Custody, Adoption & Maintenance (In 2 Volumes) [Buy Here]

3. Ramesh Chandra Nagpal – Modern Hindu Law [Buy Here]

4. Sumeet Malik – B.M. Gandhis Hindu Law

 

Law made Easy

[Disclaimer: This note is for general information only. It is NOT to be substituted for legal advice or taken as legal advice. The publishers of the blog shall not be liable for any act or omission based on this note]

 Introduction

“Maintenance” is an amount payable by the husband to his wife who is unable to maintain herself either during the subsistence of marriage or upon separation or divorce. Various laws governing maintenance are as follows:

for Hindus – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

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

for Parsis – Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936

for Christians – Divorce Act, 1869

secular laws – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Special Marriage Act,1954

Temporary Maintenance (pendente lite)

Temporary maintenance is granted by the court during the pendency of proceeding for divorce or separation to meet the immediate needs of the petitioner.

Under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 either of the spouses, husband or wife can be granted relief if the court is satisfied that the applicant has no independent income sufficient for his or her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings pending under the Act.

Interim maintenance may also be claimed under Section 125 CrPC by the wife during the pendency of proceeding for regarding monthly allowance for maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC.

Furthermore, Section 36 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 also makes provision for the wife to seek expenses from the husband if it appears to the district court that she does not have independent income sufficient for her support and necessary expenses of proceedings under Chapters V or VI of that Act.

Still further, under Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 either Parsi wife or husband is entitled to claim expenses where the proceeding is pending under the Act. Section 39 of the Act which is substantially the same as Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act makes a provision in this behalf.

Also, under Section 36 of Divorce Act, 1869 which applies to persons professing Christain religion, a wife is entitled to expenses of proceeding under the Act and maintenance while the suit is pending.

All these provisions specify that the application for interim maintenance has to be disposed of within sixty days of service of notice on the respondent.

Permanent Maintenance

It is the maintenance granted permanently after the disposal of the proceeding for divorce or separation.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 25 – Applicant, either wife or husband is entitled to receive from the spouse for his/her maintenance and support a gross sum or monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the applicant’s lifetime or until he/she remarries or remains chaste.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 – Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. Wife also has a right to separate residence and maintenance if any of the condition in Section 18(2) [desertion, cruelty, leprosy, any other wife/ concubine living in the same house, conversion of religion or any other reasonable cause] is fulfilled until she remains chaste or does not convert to other religion. It may also be noted that Section 19 of this Act makes a provision for a widowed wife to be maintained by her father-in-law.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – This section provides for maintenance not only to the wife but also to child and parents. Court may order a husband who has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself to provide monthly maintenance to her. However, wife shall not be entitled to receive maintenance if she is living in adultery, or refuses to live with husband without any sufficient reasons, or living separately with mutual consent.

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Section 3 – A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband; an amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim law; and all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends. If husband fails to provide her the above mentioned then Magistrate can order for payment of the same.

Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, Section 40 – A Parsi husband or wife may apply to the Court under this section whereupon the Court at the time of passing any decree under the Act or anytime subsequent thereto order that the defendant pay the plaintiff a gross or monthly sum for his/her maintenance and support. Such order may also be modified subsequently if the Court is satisfied that change in circumstances warrants so. The order may also be rescinded or modified if the party in whose favour the order was made remarries; or in case of wife, she does not remain chaste; or in case of the husband, he has sexual intercourse with any woman outside the wedlock.

Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 37 – This section is also similar to Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. The difference being that under this section maintenance may be claimed only by a wife against the husband from a court exercising jurisdiction under Chapters V or VI of the Act. An order made under this section may be modified or rescinded by the district court at the instance of the husband if it is shown that the wife has remarried or is not leading a chaste life.

Divorce Act, 1869, Section 37 – This section empowers the district court to order the husband to secure a reasonable gross sum to the wife or annual sum not exceeding her lifetime when a decree of dissolution or decree or judicial separation is obtained by the wife. While passing such order, the court may have regard to fortune of the wife, ability of the husband and conduct of the parties. The court may also order the husband to pay such monthly or weekly sum to the wife for her maintenance as the court may think reasonable. If subsequently, the husband becomes unable to make such payments, the court may discharge or modify such order.

Cases

Maintenance defined

Maintenance includes — (i) in all cases, provisions for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage, Section 3(b), Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Maintenance necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head, Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi, (1995) 6 SCC 88.

 Sustenance defined

Maintenance of wife for her ‘sustenance’ does not mean animal existence but signifies leading life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. Husband is duty bound to enable his wife to live life with dignity according to their social status and strata, Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353.

Wife defined

“Wife” Includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried,  Section 125(1) Explanation (b), CrPC 1973.

“Wife” in Section 125 CrPC means a legally wedded wife and also includes a divorced wife, D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.

Maintenance only to legally wedded wife

Only a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance. A Hindu woman marrying a Hindu male having a living wife, is not entitled to maintenance as this marriage is void, Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530.

Maintenance to ‘previous wife’

A Muslim husband contracting another marriage or taking a mistress is liable to pay maintenance to the previous wife who also has right to live separately which is payable from the date of the other marriage. Irrespective of religion, husband cannot absolve his liability by offering to take back the wife and maintain her, Begum Subanu v. A.M. Abdul Gafoor, (1987) 2 SCC 285.

 Maintenance to second wife

Husband who conceals subsistence of his earlier marriage while marrying the second wife is entitled to give maintenance to second wife. Second wife is to be treated as a legally wedded wife for the purpose of maintenance, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188.

Wife ‘living separately with mutual consent’ does not include divorced wife

The meaning of ‘wife’ under Sections 125(1) and 125(4) CrPC is different. Section 125(4) contemplates a married woman. Wife living separately from husband with mutual consent does not mean wife who obtains divorce by mutual consent and lives separately and therefore cannot be denied maintenance on this ground, Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299.

Is an earning wife entitled to maintenance?

Wife having a school of her own and possessing wet lands is in a better financial position than husband who is not doing well in his profession and has no land. Hence, it is unnecessary to pay any maintenance to the wife, Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840.

Wife’s income to be accounted for determining maintenance

Wife’s income has to be taken into account while determining the amount of maintenance payable to her. It is not an absolute right of a neglected wife to get maintenance nor it is an absolute liability of husband to support her in all the circumstances, Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386.

Maintenance to woman in a live-in relationship

The Supreme Court expressed its opinion that a broad interpretation of “wife” should include cases where man and woman live together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time (live-in relationship/ presumed marriage/ de facto marriage/ cohabitation). A strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under S. 125 CrPC so as to fulfill the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance, Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141. (This judgment has however been referred to a larger bench)

Recently, it is held that a woman in a live-in relationship has an efficacious remedy to seek maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even if it is assumed that she is not entitled to the same under Section 125 CrPC. In fact, under the Domestic Violence Act, the victim would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 CrPC, Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2301.

Woman knowingly entering in a live-in relationship with a married man

All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. There has to be some inherent/ essential characteristic of marriage though not a marriage legally recognised. A live-in relationship between an unmarried woman knowingly entering into relationship with a married male cannot be termed as a relationship in the “nature of marriage” and her status would be that of a concubine or mistress and therefore is not entitled to maintenance, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.

 Muslim woman entitled to maintenance under CrPC

A divorced Muslim woman has right under Section 125 CrPC to claim maintenance even beyond the iddat period. If the woman is able to maintain herself then the liability of husband to maintain her ceases with the expiration of iddat period. However, on the inability of maintaining herself, she can take recourse of that section. Section 125 has an overriding effect on personal law in case of conflict between the two, Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.

Divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance from State Wakf Board

A divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain herself can directly claim maintenance from the State Wakf Board in the first instance under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and in the same proceeding can plead inability of her relatives to maintain her. Relatives can be added as parties to the litigation if they have enough means to pay maintenance, T.N. Wakf Board v. Syed Fatima Nachi, (1996) 4 SCC 616.

Husband to make fair provision and maintenance within iddat period for ex-wife’s whole life

Section 3(1)(a) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 makes husband liable to make a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to divorced Muslim wife on or before the expiration of the iddat period. However, this maintenance is not limited only for the iddat period but extends to her whole life unless she remarries. Husband is obliged to provide a reasonable and fair provision in addition to maintenance to contemplate the future need of ex-wife, Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.

Maintenance not restricted to iddat period

A divorced Muslim wife is entitled to maintenance not merely until the completion of the iddat period, but for her entire life unless she remarries. Sabra Shamim v. Maqsood Ansari, (2004) 9 SCC 616.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of M.S. Sonak, J. held in a petition by relying on several decisions that, “an agreement, in which wife gives up or relinquish her right to claim maintenance at any time in the future,is  opposed to public policy and therefore, such an agreement, even if voluntarily entered, is not enforceable.”

The facts in the present case are as follows, Learned Counsel Sandeep Koregave placed his submissions for the petitioner that, during the Lok Adalat proceedings, petitioner and respondent 1 filed a consent pursis, in which they not only agreed to dissolve their marriage but also agreed not to claim any maintenance from each other. Further, he stated that respondent-wife had made false allegations that her consent was obtained by fraud. The main contention placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, in terms of agreement recorded in the consent decree, respondent having waived her right to receive maintenance, cannot now maintain an application under Section 125 CrPC.

Counsel for the respondent-wife Mr Nagesh Chavan stated that there can be no agreement in derogation of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC since such provisions have been designed as a matter of public policy to protect against destitution and vagrancy.

The High Court, relied on various decisions, such as Shahnaz Bano v. Babbu Khan ; 1985 SCC OnLine Bom 200, wherein it was observed: “even in a case covered by Clause (c) of Section 127 (3) of CrPC, where the wife has surrendered her rights voluntarily, in a given case, if after waiving her rights to maintenance, she becomes vagrant and destitute and is unable to maintain herself, then irrespective of her personal law, she would be entitled to avail statutory remedy for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.”

and Ranjit Kaur v. Pavittar Singh; 1991 SCC OnLine P&H 693 for the proposition that: “The statutory right of a wife of maintenance cannot be bartered, done away with or negatived by the husband by setting up an agreement to the contrary. Such an agreement in addition to it being against public policy would also be against the clear intendment of this provision”

After so referring, the Court stated that there is no reason to interfere with the views taken by the two courts in the present matter. Therefore, application of respondent 1 under Section 125 CrPC is held as maintainable and there is no doubt that the Magistrate will dispose of the application under Section 125 CrPC, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Further, learned Judicial Magistrate in the present case is directed to dispose of application of respondent 1. [Ramachandra Laxman Kamble v. Shobha Ramachandra Kamble, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 7039, dated 21-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. set aside an order of Family Court refusing maintenance to wife on the basis of husband’s submissions.

Petitioner, who was respondent’s wife, filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The respondent undertook to pay his daughter’s fee directly to school but refused to maintain his wife. He submitted a memo stating that petitioner was a qualified doctor having BDS degree who refused to work and earn for herself, and therefore he was not willing to provide maintenance to her. On the basis of said memo, Family Court refused the petitioner’s claim. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The Court noted that petitioner had been refused maintenance on the sole ground that she was qualified and could maintain herself. No reasons had been stated in the impugned order, other than making a reference to the respondent’s memo. The Court relied on the decision in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 holding that even if the wife was earning some amount, that may not be a reason to outrightly reject her maintenance application. It was held that, in the instant case, Family Court should have applied its mind carefully before rejecting petitioner’s prayer for maintenance.

It was further opined that the concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to live life in penury and roam around for basic maintenance. Wife is entitled to lead a life in the same manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. Husband is not entitled to contend that he is not prepared to pay any maintenance and courts are not expected to accept the blatant refusal of the husband with folded hands.

In view of the above, the petition was allowed and Family Court was directed to pass fresh orders in the petition expeditiously and in any case within one month. [Alphonsa Joseph v. Anand Joseph,2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5012, decided on 29-11-2018]