Case laws

Ans: By this petition purported to have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution') prayer is to declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations.  Further prayer is made that whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations. This according to the petitioner, would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Several instances have been highlighted to exhibit how commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC has been made with oblige motive and with a view to harass the husband, in-laws and relatives.  According to the petitioner there i...

Ans: In the citation of MANJU RAM KALITA V. STATE OF ASSAM, 2009, the honourable Supreme Court relying on several precedents observed that the meaning of “Cruelty” differs in each statutory provision and hence must be established in the context of Section 498A of IPC. The conduct of the man, the seriousness of his acts must be compared with the likeliness of the woman to commit suicide, etc. It must be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels would not come under the purview of “cruelty”. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction order under Section 498A of IPC. x

Ans: In the citation of BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. V. MONICA, the honourable Supreme Court observed that all the essential elements required for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC were not fulfilled in the present case. The respondent took all coercive steps to ensure the presence of appellants in India without making any effort at conciliation. The court was of the view that merely because the mother-in-law kicked the daughter-in-law and threatened her with divorce, the same did not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. Thus, no case was made out against the appellants under Section 498A of IPC. x

Ans:  In case of Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386, the honourable Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions of maintenance are to prevent vagrancy as well as destitution. The Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain the standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband as well as his commitments. The Supreme Court of India held that the separate or independent income of the wife should also be considered while determining the amount of maintenance payable to her. Therefore, the Court passed the appeal and set aside the judgment delivered by the High Court. The Court decided to send the case back to the trial Magistrate to readjust the amount of maintenance. x x

Ans: According to the citation of Naresh Chandra V. Reshma Bai : 1992, Cri.L.J 579: 1992, the the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the absence of facts are essential to put forward to constitute a valid marriage. Court can not grant interim maintenance in favour of alleged wife but the illegitimate child is entitled to interim relief. x

Ans: In accordance with the citation of Swastika sen V. State of West Bengal, 2003, , the Calcutta High Court held that if a wife is an employed person or has a business and earns a definite sum by way of regular income and if the court finds that such income is sufficient to maintain her to earn for her livelihood, she can not claim maintenance from the husband. The ITR proves that the wife was able to maintain herself during the interim period, thus the application was dismissed.

Ans: The High Court of Telangana replied the question if a wife who is earning, be operated as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home, though the case of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed,( Tr.C.M.P.Nos.758 and 760 of 2018) which was decided through the learned bench led by M.S.Ramachandra Rao.  In the present case, the family court dismissed the interim application filed by the first petitioner on the ground that the wife herself had mentioned that she was earning Rs 20,000/- per month. The court ordered the first respondent to pay 7 Thousand per month to each petitioner 2 and 3 that were his children towards interim maintenance, from the date of the petition, pending disposal of maintenance case and the petition to the extent of petitioner 1 that is the wife was dismissed.  The wife being aggrieved by the order approached the HC for revision. Once the case was brought before the High Court,  the court referred to...

Ans: In Andhra Pradesh High Court , Amravati S Madhusudhana Rao vs N J Prasanthi on 30 November, 2021, the learned high court said that the earning of wife was not a bar to maintenance of wife . The learned Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted that the wife was entitled to maintenance according to the status and lifestyle of her husband as if she were living in her husband’s home.

Ans: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the payee received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge, in wholly or partly, of any debt or any liability.  This presumption is no doubt rebuttable by the accused, by ‘preponderance of probabilities’. So, if the accused can establish a probable defence, that creates a reasonable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, then the prosecution would fail and the accused can do so by only using the materials or evidence presented by the prosecution and in many cases an accused did not need to present another or own evidence. Virender Kumar vs Sumit on 25 April, 2018 IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET NAGPAL, MM (NI ACT)-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: NEW DELHI. The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved for drawer under negotiable instrument act. Section 140 of the Negotiab...

Ans: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the payee received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge, in wholly or partly, of any debt or any liability.  This presumption is no doubt rebuttable by the accused, by ‘preponderance of probabilities’. So, if the accused can establish a probable defence, that creates a reasonable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, then the prosecution would fail and the accused can do so by only using the materials or evidence presented by the prosecution and in many cases the accused did not need to present another or own evidence. Virender Kumar vs Sumit on 25 April, 2018 IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET NAGPAL, MM (NI ACT)-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: NEW DELHI. Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lays down that there is no such defence, that the drawer has no reason to believe, when the cheque wa...

Ans: Friendly loan concerning unaccounted money Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, does not include within its purview the liability to pay an unaccounted cash amount. So, if there was a loan given which was in the form of an unaccounted cash, then it is not legally enforceable to repay it. Sanjay Mishra v. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor In this case, it was held by the Mumbai High Court Court that the applicant has failed to prove that the cheque issued by the respondent was in discharge of a legal liability of the loan amount, and also the respondent denied her signatures on the bill of exchange as well as the cheque and also the learned Judge had considered that the applicant acknowledged that the amount advanced was unaccounted and the same was not disclosed to the Income Tax Authority. x

 Ans: Cheque bounced given as a security  If an accused or the drawer of the cheque, proves that the cheque issued, was not in discharge of any debt or liability, while issuing the cheque, as well as it was just given as security deposit, hence it would not attract the offence under the Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  Joseph Vilangadan v. Phenomenal Health Care Services In this case, the appellants said that the given cheque was the refundable security deposit to ensure the performance of the work and the terms of the contract, as well as there was no existing debt or liability. Also, when the agreement was entered , there was no debt or liability on the part of the drawer, and it was mentioned in the terms of the contract that if the contractor fails to perform his services then the respondent or holder could encash and can recover the amount. But it did not happen so and the work was performed, and therefore, it did not come under the purview of  S...

Ans: Some of the significant features of the 2002 amendment in negotiable instrument act are as follows:  1)​The period within, which the payee must render notice to the drawer, extended to thirty days against fifteen days earlier.  2)​The maximum jail term for offences enhanced to two years from one year.  3)​The trials, as far as practicable, must be continued from day to day, consistently with the interest of justice, until the conclusion. 4. Endeavour must be to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint;  5)​A copy of the summons issued by a magistrate to an accused or witness would also be served through special post or impaneled couriers. 6)​The evidence of the complainant may be given by him on an affidavit as well as be read in evidence, and the court, if it thinks fit, shall on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavits (with exceptions).  7)​Offences...

Ans: The dishonour of cheque is not an offence punishable under criminal law and the holder of a cheque had an only civil remedy and if the holder of cheque wanted to make it a criminal offence he had to take recourse to section 420 of Indian Penal Code alleging cheating on the part of the drawer of the cheque. The punishment provided for such cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment up to seven years as well as a fine. Two things are important for the implication of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., dishonest intention as well as men’s rea. If the fraudulent or dishonest intention is absent, the question of committing an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. x

Ans: For committing an offence under Section 138 of the Act “mens rea” is not an important ingredient. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, excludes mens rea by creating strict liability as well as this is explicit from the words 'such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence.  The liability which does not depend on actual negligence is strict liability.  The returning of the cheque by the bank either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the drawer of the cheque is insufficient or the amount covered by the cheque is in the excess of the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement with the bank are the two essential conditions creating strict liability. x

Ans: If an application is moved to set aside the ex- parte order, then the Magistrate will examine the same. Application is to be made within three months from the date of passing the ex-parte order. The Court in dealing with applications u/s 125 of the CrPC shall have the power to set aside such order as to costs as may be just. In the case of Mohd. Naim Siddiqui v. Sultana Khatoon, the Court clarified that an ex-parte order u/s 125 CrPC to be set aside where the husband was not served. x

Ans: CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Date : 02/12/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.By way of present application, the applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by learned Family Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: That, the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24.11.2008 at Ahmedabad and out of their wedlock, one daughter namely Brahmi was born and later on matrimonial disputes were started between the applicant and the respondent no.2 and therefore, the respondent no.2 had left her marital home with the respondent no.3 and started residing at her parental home. Thereafter, applicant preferred an application being CRMA No. 356 of 2022 for getting custody of his daughter from the respondent no.2 as well as the respondent no.2 has filed application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013 for getting maintenance. Thereafter, ...

Ans: In the citation of  Shripal Raja Rajendra kumar Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2023, it is the legal duty of the husband to maintain his wife as well as to render financial support to her and his children and the man cannot shirk his responsibility as husband for wife as well as father for children to maintain his legally wedded wife and children, which is his social as well as lawful duty towards them and the wife and children would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were enjoying while living with him.

Ans: The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in a recent case, Ramiz Raza vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. has held that a wife has statutory right to seek maintenance from her husband regardless of the fact that whether she is an earning individual or not. It is mentioned, by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dutt (supra) that even a wife who has substantial income of her own or even a working lady will be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Even if initially it was a misconception that a working woman is not entitled to claim maintenance because she has some substantial income and is able to maintain herself, but considering the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the said case, it is evident that she can claim maintenance although she is an earning lady. Finally, it can be inferred from the above said statutory provisions as well as the case laws that the earning wives do have right to seek maintenance subject to the income st...

Ans: In citation of Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589], the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

Ans: In case of Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386, the honourable Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions of maintenance are to prevent vagrancy as well as destitution. The Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain the standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband as well as his commitments.

Ans: In the case of Arun Vats vs. Pallavi Sharama & Anr,  the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has relied upon the case of Shalija & Ors. Vs. Khobbanna and reiterated the settled principle that ‘capable of earning’ and ‘actual earning’ are two different concepts. The Hon’ble Court denied to lesser down the maintenance awarded by the Family Court under section 125 of the CrPC to the wife merely because of her qualifications as well as the capability to earn and the disputed income status of the wife.

Ans: In the citation of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, it was held by honourable Supreme Court that if wife is earning, it cannot be operated as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.

Ans: In the case titled Shalija & Ors. Vs. Khobbanna , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘capable of earning’ and ‘actually earning’ are two different concepts and merely because the wife is capable to earn money doesn’t give sufficient reason to the court to reduce the maintenance awarded to her. Here, the Hon’ble Court clearly held that the qualification of the wife per se doesn’t create any barriers for the wives to seek maintenance from their husbands.

Ans: Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) requires a husband to support his wife (who is otherwise unable to maintain herself). The Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors (2014) has held that Section 125 of CrPC was conceived to reduce the agony, anguish, as well as financial suffering of a woman who has left her matrimonial home for the reasons set forth in the provision so that the Court can make appropriate arrangements for her and her children if they are with her. The term “sustenance” does not always imply that one is living an animal’s existence. She has the legal right to conduct her life in the same manner as she would have in her husband’s home. 

Ans: In the case of Amit Kumar vs. Navjot Dubey, CR No. 6198 of 2013, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the lower court to award interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, although the wife was earning more than her husband. The wife was also taking care of their two children. The High Court's decision reaffirmed the right to maintenance for working wives. The court held, “Taking into consideration, prices of daily necessities of life, expenses on education of the children, who would have to meet the challenges of the society , the Punjab and Haryana find it difficult to accept contention of the petitioner that maintenance pendente lite assessed by the court below is on higher side as well as requires reduction.” The court noted that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living as if she were still living in the matrimonial home, stating that this is a well-established principle in law. Therefore, the court reject...

Ans: The Delhi High Court in Jaspreet Singh Vs. Swaneet Kukreja (CRL.REV.P. 162/2021 & CRL.M.As. 5576/2021, 8691/2021) and Swaneet Kukreja Vs. Jaspreet Singh (CRL.REV.P. 194/2021) held that a wife's interim maintenance cannot be denied even if she is capable of earning an income and is a working professional. The Court observed that “the Ld. ASJ has correctly noted that even if it is proved that the wife is capable of earning and is a working professional, it is still no ground to deny her interim maintenance. Therefore, the direction of Rs. 1,25,000/- being paid per month as interim maintenance, with the wife as well as minor child receiving Rs. 62,500/- each, is an appropriate amount, considering the income of the husband. The Court found no merit in the submissions of either the wife or the husband challenging the said Order and, therefore, did not deem it fit to interfere in the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021.

Ans: In the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabai ,Appeal (Crl.) 1627 of 2007, it was held that a wife can still request alimony even if she is earning an income. The Supreme Court ruled that a woman who has been separated from her husband can request maintenance from him even if she is earning a monthly income, as long as it is not sufficient for her to support herself. The court also stated that the phrase "unable to maintain herself" does not require a wife to be completely destitute before she can apply for maintenance.

Ans: The Rajasthan High Court  held that merely the fact that the wife is earning would not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. The Court also opined that the charge of desertion can not become a ground so as to enable the husband to disqualify the wife to claim the monthly maintenance from husband, in any manner whatsoever.  

Ans: The Delhi High Court has held  that the capability of wife to earn is no ground to deny interim maintenance to her opining that many time wives sacrifice their career only for the service of family.

Ans: In case of Mr. Sanjay Damodar Kale V. Ms. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2019, the Mumbai High Court recently while hearing a criminal revision application filed by a 51-year-old man from Pune against a family court judgment directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his ex-wife, held that she is entitled to maintenance even if she runs a business and has her own source of income.

Ans:  Following are the strategies that should be applied to preclude the interim maintenance by honourable court:  1. It  should be prepared for the well drafted reply of complaint u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by mentioning the fact that the wife had left the house and company of husband on her own sweet will without any reasonable or sufficient cause.  2. It is required to look for contradictions of allegations relating to cruelty as well as expelling her out of the house in the other complaints like DV Act complaint, 498a Complaint, etc . The major ground she had taken in her complaint is that she had been ill-treated and cruelty is done on her by husband & her in-laws. This point can be tackled by any contradiction in the different complaints filed by wife.  3. It is required to look for absence of allegation in her statement, other witness statements as compared to her other complaints and the 125 Cr.P.C complaint – Contradictions & Absence of allegations in dif...

Ans: Filing RCR on Right Time & Favourable Decision on it can assist the husbands to Free from paying Maintenance and get the Maintenance Order Cancelled. In a case Koppadi Bakta Markandeyulu vs Koppadi Sri Lakshmi on 12 February, 2020 the High Court of Madras held after a careful perusal of the materials available on record, said that it is evident that despite the order passed in OP.No.7/2009 filed by the applicant seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent had not joined with him and got a divorce order. As such, she voluntarily deserts the applicant and refused to live with her husband, without any sufficient cause. So the High Court cleared the position that the wife is not entitled for maintenance, in terms of Section 125(5) Cr.P.C. Hence, the High Court set aside the order of the lower court.

Ans: In a case of Madhya Pradesh High Court , Smt. Seema Verma vs Mahendra Verma on 4 th December, 2019, the high court in this case heard that the advocates of the parties and after perusing the record held that it is right that the application under Section 9 of the HMA filed by the wife has been rejected by the Lower Court, against which an appeal was filed before the high Court. The same was admitted but there was no stay granted in the appeal application. The high court further held that it is true that the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the HMA before the Trial Court has been allowed and the wife had not complied with the aforesaid direction and had unnecessarily refused to live with the husband with no sufficient reason. It is a clear and admitted that as per the provision of Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. that if any person has a sufficient means, neglects and refuses to maintain her wife and children, he shall be liable for payment of maintenance to the wife. ...

Ans: In case of  Punjab & Haryana High Court, SURJIT KAUR V. GURNAM SINGH on 10-08-2016,  it was proved that the wife had left the company of her husband without any reasonable cause. It was also came in front that she claimed separation since 1986, but she filed the case of maintenance in the year 2007. It was also seen that both the husband & wife were old and aged. The husband was now in his late eighties and it had also seen from the records that he had no sufficient funds even to maintain himself. The wife had been residing with her son for over a period of ten years. All these facts were taken into consideration by the appellate Court while dismissing the claim for maintenance to the wife. The relevant findings by the appellate Court are cleared from perusal of Para 10 to 12 of the decision passed, the appellate court held that in the application, the wife has alleged that she was ill-treated in 1986, therefore, she had been living separately from her husband sin...

Ans: In case of Madras High Court on Ajithkumar vs Simmi on 5 December, 2016, the High Court talking about the section 125(4) of Cr.P.C had taken consideration of the Supreme court’s Rohtash Singh case . The high court observed in the said case, that the apex court had given its opinion that if wife had refused to live with her husband , as per Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to maintenance. If the marriage exists, the wife is under a legal and moral obligation to live with her husband and to fulfill the marital obligations. She cannot, without any sufficient cause, refuse to live with her husband. "Sufficient cause" have been interpreted differently by the High Courts having regard to the facts of individual cases.

Ans: In a decision of Andhra High Court in a case S. Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum V/s B Mohammad Ghouse & Anr. on 28 March 2016, it was held that no maintenance relief to wife who left home without justifiable reasons. The High court found that in the cross examination the wife stated that she executed an agreement in the presence of witnesses with an undertaking that she will not compel the respondent for setting up separate family. If really the wife did not compel the husband persistently to set up separate family, what made her to do her signature on the  agreement? The Courts cannot ignore the human conduct while appreciating the rival submissions of the couple to the proproceedings, more particularly in family matters, wherein the possibility of presenting distorted facts by the couple to the proceedings so that they can gain sympathy of the court .If really the wife had suffered in the hands of the husband and his family members, certainly the wife might have avai...

Ans: During a case in Allahabad High Court of Smt. Jyoti Alias Gudiya vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 18 February, 2015 the maintenance relief was rejected to wife who denies to live with her husband with a reason that she would not like to live with the husband’s family. Imposition of such unreasonable pre-condition cannot be said to be just cause for the wife to live separately from her husband. It pertains to condition that the only way that was opened for the husband was to first desert his mother and then to reside with his wife. This aspect of the case has got substantial bearing in this case, because in order to receive the amount of maintenance, it was incumbent upon the wife to prove reasonably that she has got just cause to live separately from her husband. The imposition of unreasonable condition as an excuse for living separately by either of the spouse is not permissible in law.

Ans:In case of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Smt. Aradhana Tiwari vs Deepak Tiwari on 16 July, 2015 ,  the High court on the basis of letter and submission of the wife in her cross-examination that learned trial Court had found in which it was cited that she was never ill-treated by her husband or in-laws but she was unable to adjust herself in her husband’s house and she did not want to stay with her husband and wanted to take divorce from him. On the basis of her this admission that she had written a letter to her father stating that she has no complaint against her in-laws but she was unable to adjust with them; thus, she would like to marry with someone else.  The honourable court  recorded the finding that the wife had left her husband of her own freewill without any sufficient reasons. It cannot be said that the wife had to leave her husband on account of any ill- treatment, misbehavior or harassment on the part of her husband or in-laws.

Ans: According to case of Madras High Court Dr.G.Sivaraman vs P.Muthukumari on 5 September, 2013, it has been cleared mentioned that the wife who is living seperately from her husband with his own wish will not be entitled for maintenance.

Ans: In case of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Suresh Bharadwaj vs Smt. Vandana on 17 September, 2012, the court observed that wife herself has clearly stated that she does not want to live with husband in any condition and she only wants maintenance, it seems that to get maintenance is the only cause for teasing husband. Wife herself is at fault is at her own will is living separately without justification, is not entitled to get any maintenance. She has also admitted in paragraph 4 of her evidence that her parents are old and they cannot do cultivation so she is doing cultivation over their land and in paragraph 6, she has admitted that her husband tried to bring her once and second time he called Panchayat at her village. The only reason which she assigned for not residing with applicant is that all unmarried brothers of applicant will keep her as their wife . As per discussion held by the court, Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence of both the couples and came on the w...

Ans: In case of Andhra High Court of Guntamukkala Naga Venkata Kanaka Durga @ Nagmani V/s Guntamukkala Eswar Sudhakar & Anr. on 19 Oct 2012 , it was held that there would be no maintenance to wife who is guilty of Desertion and has left her husband without an reasonable cause. The High court after scrutinizing all the cross examination and material on record opined that awarding maintenance relief to a wife will be against the concept of provision under 125 (4) crpc. The high court further held how can a husband who got no respect for the marital bond be ordered to give maintenance. The couple will have the obligation of maintaining the other spouse when the other spouse is neglected by him or her.

Ans: Delhi District Court on Smt. Krishna Dhawan vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2010 - In the present case, the applicant has failed to prove on record any justifiable ground for leaving the company of her husband respondent except that she stated that she has been ill illtreated for the last 20 to 23 years but in her cross examination she herself has admitted that there was no demand of dowry by the respondent at the time of marriage or after the marriage. Thus so far as the allegations of dowry demand are concerned, applicant has failed to prove the same. She has also failed to prove any other justifiable ground on record for her living separately from the respondent. In such circumstances, Ld. MM has rightly held that applicant is not entitled for any maintenance. Ld. MM has rightly held that applicant is unable to maintain herself and there is no document filed on record by the respondent also to show that applicant is working or is able to maintain hers...

Ans: Wife living separate from husband not entitled for maintenance order on 27-08-2010 in case Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs State & Anr. The Delhi high court opined that we are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution asked to give every individual equal treatment irrespective of sex, caste and creed. The husband holding a degree of MBA cannot be taken different from the wife who is also holding a degree of MBA. Since both are on equally educated than one cannot be asked to pay maintenance to the other unless one is is in service and other is not. As far as dependency on parents is concerned, the court held that once a person is grown up and educated , he cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the parents and maintain wife. The parents had done their duty by educating their children and now they cannot be asked to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up and must take care of themselves. The high court also opined that it must be remembered that there is no legal as...

Ans:  In case of Azad Jain vs Smt.Jaya Jain on 21 July, 2009, it was held by Madhya Pradesh High Court that a wife, against whom a decree for divorce even based on the ground of desertion has been passed, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 unless she suffers from any of the disabilities enumerated in S.125(4) of the Code (Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri AIR 2000 SC 952 referred to).  However, as explained further, in such a case the wife would not be entitled to maintenance for any period prior to the passing of the decree. Applying the principle to the facts of the case on hand, it could easily be concluded that the respondent was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code for the period preceding the decree. It is also relevant to note that in the proceedings under the Act, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3,000/- p.m., was awarded to the respondent. Furthermore, in view of the finding that she had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable c...

Ans: According to Mumbai High Court in case of Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra V. Mr. Kamal Pushkar Mehra on 18th July, 2009, there would not be any maintenance to wife if RCR( Restitution of Conjugal Rights) by husband succeeds.

Ans: In case of Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta, Uttaranchal High Court,  it was held by the high court that no maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts her husband without reasonable cause and also she is earning. This revision application was filed by the wife challenging the order dated 05.10.2006 passed by Lower court refusing to grant maintenance to her. The High Court after hearing the counsels held the decision that counsel of the wife contended that finding of the Lower Court on issue no. 1 that wife is living separately without any sufficient cause is not right. The high court further held that in the nutshell about the brief facts of the case that wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband seeking maintenance for herself and for their minor son. The preeminent grounds of claim mentioned in the application were that husband had developed bad habits like consuming alcohol, gambling as well as adultery. That husband wanted to d...

Ans: In the case of  of Poonam Vs Mahender Kumar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, where it was held that no alimony to wife who deserted her husband and same was upheld by Supreme Court Of India. The High court in its decision held that the trial court, after framing the issues, recording of evidence, both oral and documentary, and hearing the advocates for the parties, came to the conclusion that the applicant had not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the husband or he was cruel towards her in any manner and the applicant was failed to present any other witness in support of her case to prove cruelty, dowry demand and other allegations made in the application. Even the parents of the applicant did not came forward to support her case. The applicant had failed to join her husband even after the application filed by him for RCR was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Application filed under Section 13 of the HMA which was filed by the applicant, ...

Ans: In the case of Smt. Rohtash Singh V. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a wife will not be entitled to maintenance who had left the company of her husband, but a wife who has been divorced on account of leaving the company of her husband is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce. 

Ans: During a case in Rajasthan High Court of Satish vs. Smt.Yoglata & Anr. 22.10.2008,  it was held that if Husbands Wins Sec 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) then Wife will not be entitled for Maintenance in CrPC under section 125. The judgment on restitution of conjugal rights against wife is equivalent to the decision by the competent civil court that the wife had no sufficient reasons for refusing to live with her husband. The maintenance was therefore rejected and cancelled. 

Ans: During a case in Mumbai High Court of Sanjay Sudhkar Bhosle Vs Khristina on 08-04-2008, it was held that no maintenance to wife who left her husband. The high court held on briefly taking survey of the evidence tendered by the parties. Wife testified that after six months of the marriage, the husband and his relatives started giving ill-treatment to her on account of demand of money. This part of her statement is discrepant with allegations in the pleadings. In the application of wife, she alleged that a dowry items were demanded by the husband from her parents. There is no whisper of any such demand throughout her oral statement before the Lower court. She stated that on 21.02.1999, the husband beaten up her and expel her out of the house. She filed a complaint at the nearest Police Station. Her submission shows that she had written two letters and told about her condition in the matrimonial home to her father. Her brother used to visit her in-laws house. Nor his brother neit...

Ans: During a case of , Natarajan vs Paklaniammal on 11 September, 2006, the Tamil Nadu High Court  held that the learned counsel for the applicant, would contend that the order of maintenance cannot be sustained on two grounds. Firstly, when the respondent was not willing to live with her husband as stated by her in the Panchayat, she would not be entitled for maintenance as found in Second Proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.  Secondly, as per the customs prevailing in the community, the respondent has received a total sum of Rs.60,000/- towards maintenance for herself and her minor son at the time of divorce as per Ex.B-1, a panchayat muchalika executed by both the applicant as well as the respondent. Therefore, the wife would not be entitled for further maintenance.

Ans: In the citation of  Ramkaran V/s Gyarsi on 24 January 2005, it was held by honourable Supreme Court that Wife Staying away from husband without Justifiable Reason would not be entitled for maintenance. x

Ans: During a case in Mumbai High Court of Meena Dinesh Parmar Vs Dinesh H. Parmar Wife on 04-02-2005, it was held by Mumbai High Court that if the wife deserted her husband, no maintenance. The High court in its decision held that they find that she had contended that she was harassed and ill-treated by her husband and his family members. Her allegations in this regard were vague. There was no date mentioned in respect of any particular incident of cruelty. So ,the particulars of cruelty were also not given. She had alleged that she had been never provided with any medical aid during her pregnancy period. In addition to her only statement, there is nothing on record to substantiate her submission. It is noted that she had gone to her parents place for delivery however, within two days she left for her uncle's place at Pune. In the police enquiry her own father had given a statement that his agreement and permission was not taken by her for leaving her husband's house. There is...

Ans: During a case of Chhattisgarh High Court in Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav on 15 -02-2004 it was held that the maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. It was held by the honourable high court that in view of the evidence on record that no maintenance will be given to wife if she left her home voluntarily. 

Ans: During a Case in Supreme Court of Deb Narayan V/s Anushree Halder on 26 August 2003, it was held that no maintenance to wife who is errant and left matrimonial home on her own without any justifiable reason. It was held that the appellant herein is the husband of the respondent. He has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 26.11.2001 whereby the High Court while allowing the Revision Application preferred by the respondent directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rupees fifteen hundred per month by way of maintenance to the respondent and also to pay costs of rupees two thousand. While doing so,  it set aside the order of the lower court dated 15.12.2000 passed on the application filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C., in so far as the lower court refused the prayer of the wife for grant of maintenance to her. The lower court, however, had directed the husband to pay a sum of rupees fifteen hundred per month ...

Ans: During a case of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Renu vs Hiralal @ Harish on 5 March, 2002 it was held that the wife had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance relief alleging on her husband that after the marriage, she was ill-treated for demand of dowry as well as the husband deserted her without any valid cause.The wife was compelled to live with her mother. She has no source of income to maintain her whereas the husband is a businessman having a Kirana Store and is also doing the work of Commission Agent. She had prayed for Rupees three thousand per month as maintenance and filed a separate application for interim maintenance. In accordance with the wife, her husband earns rupees ten thousand per month. The application was supported by affidavit.  The husband, in reply, submitted before the lower Court that her wife of her own will, voluntarily residing separately. He wants to keep, and live with, her for which, he had filed a suit f...

Ans: During a case of Supreme Court of Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. on 02-03-2000, it was held that  Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under this provision, a wife is not entitled to any Maintenance relief from her husband if she is living in adultery or if she has denies to live with her husband without any sufficient cause or if the couple is living separately by mutual consent. Thus, the entire situation contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr. P.C presupposes the existence of marriage. The provision would be applicable where the marriage between the parties exists as well as  the divorce has not been taken by any spouse. Taking the three scenarios individually, it will be noticed that the first scenario on account of which a wife is not entitled to claim Maintenance relief from her husband is that she is living in adulterous life. Now, adultery is the sexual involvement of two...

Ans: In the citation of Beeka Ram Vs Wife and Ors,  it was already pointed out that in the revisional proceedings, the Court cannot be justified in re-evaluating the evidence as well as the honourable court come to its own conclusion when it is not shown that the lower court had omitted to consider some significant evidences or had misread the evidence. The wife has not been able to establish that she had been neglected by her husband. The court held that the wife is living with her parents of her own accord. She is, therefore, not entitled for maintenance relief from her husband. x