- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chameli v. Gajraj Bahadur Gupta
Analytical Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant, Smt. Chameli, claims to be the lawful wife of the opposite party. The parties married over 25 years before the events recorded in this opinion, but shortly after marriage the husband refused to keep the wife in his house and agreed to pay maintenance. An agreement dated 19-3-1928 (referred to in the opinion) recorded the husband’s obligation to pay Rs. 150 per annum; that amount was paid for some time. Subsequent suits for arrears and reductions in maintenance were brought in 1938 (ending in a compromise decree dated 6-2-1939) and in 1941 (also ending in a compromise decree), after which maintenance was paid according to those terms until July 1951.
On 5-11-1951 the applicant filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC) alleging neglect of maintenance by the husband. The Magistrate, first class Hardoi, refused to order maintenance on the ground that the parties were living separately by mutual consent, which, under Section 488(4), would bar relief. The applicant sought revision before the Sessions Judge of Hardoi; the Sessions Judge agreed with the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. The applicant then brought this revision to the Court that delivered the present opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an agreement between husband and wife (or an order embodying such an agreement) that provides for maintenance and separate living operates to bar a wife from seeking relief under Section 488 of the Cr PC on the ground that they are “living separately by mutual consent” within the meaning of Section 488(4).
- The proper interpretation of the phrase “living separately by mutual consent” in Section 488(4) — specifically, whether separate living that results from circumstances caused by one spouse (for example, the husband driving the wife out or taking a second wife) can be treated as “mutual consent.”
- If the Court finds relief is available, what amount of maintenance should be ordered, taking into account the applicant’s needs and the paying capacity/circumstances of the husband?
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The agreement to pay maintenance, even though agreed between the parties, does not bar the jurisdiction of a criminal Court to entertain an application under Section 488 of the Cr PC.
- The applicant alleged she was maltreated, turned out of the house, and the husband had taken a second wife; she said she was driven by circumstances to accept separate living and maintenance.
- The applicant produced evidence (her own testimony and three supporting witnesses) describing non-consensual separation and failures or interruptions in payment of maintenance, including suits taken to recover arrears.
Opposite Party's Arguments
- The opposite party contended the parties had been living separately by mutual consent, and therefore Section 488 was inapplicable in terms of Section 488(4).
- It was argued that once an agreement has been entered into between the parties (or an order embodying such agreement) a party cannot go behind that agreement to plead it lacked mutual consent.
- The opposite party produced a witness who stated the husband lived in a rented house paying Rs. 10 per mensem and that his income did not exceed Rs. 100–125 per mensem (intending to show limited paying capacity).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Budhu Ram v. Khem Devi, AIR 1926 Lah 469 | Held that once a compromise was entered into for payment of maintenance there was no refusal to maintain and Section 488 had no application; remedy lies in civil suit to enforce compromise. | The Court described this as one of the Lahore High Court rulings taking the view that a prior agreement or decree bars Section 488 relief, but ultimately did not accept this restrictive interpretation as universally correct. |
| Sham Singh v. Mt. Hakam Devi, AIR 1930 Lah 524 | A single-judge decision taking a view similar to Budhu Ram — that an agreement/compromise bars criminal jurisdiction under Section 488. | The Court noted this decision as supporting the Lahore view but did not follow it in the present case, preferring a different interpretation of “mutual consent.” |
| S.W. Colbert v. Mrs. H. Colbert, AIR 1933 Cal. 776 | The Calcutta High Court accepted the Lahore view that an order embodying an agreement to pay maintenance bars subsequent criminal proceedings under Section 488. | The Court recorded this as part of the conflicting authorities and contrasted it with other authorities it considered persuasive and more appropriate. |
| Taralakshmi Manu Prasad In re, AIR 1938 Bom 499 | Discussed the Calcutta view; the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded that the mere existence of a civil decree directing payment of maintenance does not oust the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 488 in a proper case. | The Court cited the Bombay decision as supporting the proposition that a civil agreement or decree does not automatically bar criminal jurisdiction; this view informed the Court’s rejection of a blanket bar. |
| Ram Saran Das v. Mst. Ram Piari, AIR 1937 All. 115 | Interpreted “mutual consent” to mean consent of both husband and wife to live apart; separate living imposed by one party (for example due to cruelty or keeping another woman) is not “mutual consent.” | The Court expressly approved Allsop J.'s formulation in this Allahabad decision and adopted it as the correct interpretation of “mutual consent” for Section 488(4). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began with the statutory text of Section 488(4) of the Cr PC, which disqualifies a wife from receiving allowance under Section 488 if she is living in adultery, if she without sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. The central interpretive issue was the meaning of the phrase “living separately by mutual consent.”
The Court examined the conflicting authorities. The Lahore and Calcutta decisions held that a prior compromise or decree for maintenance meant there was no “refusal to maintain” and hence Section 488 did not apply; the Bombay Division Bench reached the contrary conclusion that a civil decree or agreement does not necessarily oust the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. The Court found the view of the Lahore High Court to be too broad.
The Court preferred and adopted the interpretation given in Ram Saran Das v. Mst. Ram Piari (Allabad), where Allsop J. explained that “mutual consent” means that both husband and wife must desire to live apart independently and freely; if separate living is the result of circumstances imposed by one party (for example cruelty, or the husband keeping another woman), then living apart cannot be treated as the result of mutual consent. The Court quoted Allsop J.'s observation that a husband could otherwise defeat almost any application for maintenance by simply not insisting the wife return.
Applying that test to the evidence in the present case, the Court noted:
- The applicant testified she had been maltreated, turned out of the house, and that the husband had taken a second wife; she claimed she was thus driven by force of circumstances to live separately and accept maintenance.
- The opposite party did not give evidence to controvert the applicant’s testimony; three other witnesses supported her account.
- There was a history of intermittent payment and litigation (suits in 1938 and 1941 for arrears) showing that the applicant had to resort repeatedly to courts despite prior agreements and decrees.
On these facts the Court concluded that the separation was not the voluntary result of mutual desire to live apart by both parties; rather it was compelled by the husband’s conduct and by interruptions/failures in payment. Therefore Section 488 was not barred.
On the question of quantum, the Court applied the established approach of balancing the applicant’s needs against the paying capacity and circumstances of the husband. The applicant asked for Rs. 100 per mensem and produced a witness who stated the husband’s income was Rs. 1000 per mensem; the husband’s witness estimated the husband’s income at only Rs. 100–125 per mensem and said he rented accommodation paying Rs. 10 per mensem. The Court recognized that both parties are prone to exaggerate or minimise financial facts. The husband had to maintain a second wife and some children. Considering all circumstances and evidence, the Court found Rs. 20 per mensem an appropriate and fair amount.
Holding and Implications
Holding (core ruling): The order of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge is set aside, and the opposite party is ordered to pay Rs. 20 per mensem to the applicant as maintenance with effect from the date of her application.
Implications:
- The Court clarified the meaning of “living separately by mutual consent” in Section 488(4): the phrase requires a genuine, independent desire on the part of both husband and wife to live apart; separation resulting from circumstances imposed by one party (such as cruelty or the husband taking another wife) is not “mutual consent” and does not bar Section 488 relief.
- The decision confirms that a prior agreement or decree for maintenance does not automatically and universally oust a Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 488; the true nature and circumstances of the separation and the conduct of the parties must be examined.
- Direct practical effect: the applicant was awarded maintenance of Rs. 20 per mensem from the date of her application; the opposite party is liable to pay this sum.
Note: The Court relied on and reconciled existing authorities in reaching its interpretation; the judgment explains a rule of application rather than announcing a novel principle beyond the interpretive clarification of “mutual consent.”
End of summary based exclusively on the provided opinion.
1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge of Hardoi dismissing an application in revision against an order passed by a Magistrate, first class Hardoi refusing to order payment of maintenance on an application made by one Smt. Chameli against her husband under Section 488 of the Cr PC. Smt. Chameli who claims to be the wedded wife of the opposite party made an application to a Magistrate, first class Hardoi, asking for an order against the opposite party for maintenance as the opposite party had neglected to maintain her. The applicant was married to the opposite party more than 25 years ago, but shortly after the marriage the opposite party refused to keep the applicant in his house and agreed to pay maintenance to her. An agreement dated 19-3-1928, was executed by the applicant in favour of the opposite party relinquishing her rights against the opposite party who agreed in return to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per annum. This amount was paid for some time. A suit was, however, brought in 1938 for arrears of maintenance on the basis of this deed of agreement for the period from 1-3-1937, to 31-8-1938. This suit ended in a compromise decree being passed on 6-2-1939. Under the terms of the decree the opposite party agreed to pay the arrears of the maintenance and future maintenance was reduced to Rs. 115/- per annum.
2. Once again the applicant had to bring a suit for arrears of maintenance in 1941 when she claimed maintenance for the period from October 1938 to August 1941. In this suit also a compromise decree was passed and the opposite party agreed to pay arrears of maintenance and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 9/9 per month. The maintenance was paid to the applicant as agreed upon till July 1951. The applicant then made an application under Section 488 of the Cr PC on 5-11-1951, on the allegations that the opposite party had neglected to maintain her and that in these hard days it was not possible for her to eke out her existence.
3. The application made by the applicant was resisted by the opposite party. It was contended on his behalf that the parties had been living separately and that the applicant was not entitled to relief under S. 488 inasmuch as this section was inapplicable as the parties had been living separately by mutual consent. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that although the applicant needed assistance his jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 488 of the Cr PC was barred as the parties had been living separately by mutual consent. The applicant then went in revision to the Sessions Judge who agreed with the view taken by the Magistrate and dismissed the application for revision. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.
4. It is not disputed that the applicant is the wire of the opposite party and that they have not been living together since 1928. The execution of the agreement dated 19-3-1923 is admitted although it is alleged by the applicant that it was brought about without her consent and under indifferent circumstances. The subsequent litigation between the applicant and the opposite party was borne out by copies of decrees passed in those suits and they are Exs. B and C.
5. The first point which arises for determination in this application for revision is whether it is open to the applicant to take advantage of the provisions of Section 488 of the Cr PC after an agreement had been arrived at between the parties under which maintenance was granted to the applicant, and they were living separately. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the agreement to pay maintenance even though arrived at by consent of parties, does not bar the jurisdiction of a criminal Court to entertain an application under Section 488 of the Cr PC and in support of this contention a number of rulings have been cited. Before all these authorities cited on behalf of the applicant are considered in detail, the objection taken by the opposite party may also be referred to. Learned counsel for the opposite party contends that after an agreement has been arrived at between the parties it is not open to any of them to go behind the agreement and to plead that the agreement was not the result of mutual consent. Section 488(4) of the Cr PC lays down:
“No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living Separately by mutual consent.”
6. A perusal of the relevant provisions of Section 488 of the Cr PC, therefore, shows that if the husband and wife have been living separate by mutual consent the wife shall not be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under Section 488 of the Cr PC. The main point for consideration, therefore, in this application for revision is whether the parties in this case have been living separately by mutual consent. Two rulings of the Lahore High Court have been cited on behalf of the opposite party in support of the contention that the jurisdiction of the criminal Court under Section 488 of the Cr PC is barred after an agreement for payment of maintenance has been arrived at either by agreement or by an order of the Court: vide — ‘Budhu Ram v. Khem Devi’, AIR 1926 Lah 469 (A) and — ‘Sham Singh v. Mt. Hakam Devi’, AIR 1930 Lah 524 (B). In — ‘Budhu Ram v. Khem Devi (A)’, Dalip Singh, J. held that once a compromise was entered into for payment of maintenance there was no refusal to maintain on the part of the husband and therefore Section 488 of the Cr PC had no longer any application and that the proper remedy was by way of a civil suit to enforce the compromise.
7. A more or less similar view was taken by another single Judge in — ‘Sham Singh v. Hakam Devi’, (B). The view taken by the Lahore High Court was accepted by the Calcutta High Court in — ‘S.W Colbert v. Mrs. H. Colbert’, AIR 1933 Cal. 776 (2) (C). The learned Counsel for the applicant has cited — ‘Taralakshmi Manu Prasad In re’, AIR 1938 Bom 499 (D), in which the view taken by the Calcutta High Court was also discussed. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the reported case, however, came to the conclusion that the mere existence of a decree of a civil Court directing a certain sum to be paid for maintenance did not oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate in a proper case to make an order under Section 488 of the Cr PC. This view was in substance at variance with the view taken by the Lahore High Court which held that an order embodying an agreement to pay maintenance passed by a civil or criminal Court would subsequently bar the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to entertain an application under S. 488. The interpretation of the words “mutual consent” has been the subject of a decision in a ruling of this Court in — ‘Ram Saran Das v. Mst. Ram Piari*’, AIR 1937 All. 115 (E). In this reported case an application had been made by one Mst. Ram Piari that her husband should be directed to pay her maintenance. During the pendency of the application, the husband and wife made a joint application to the Court in which they said that they were agreed that Ram Saran Das should pay Mst. Ram Piari a sum of Rs. 4/- for her support on certain conditions. This order was enforced by the Magistrate on some occasions. Subsequently in February 1936, Mst. Ram Piari made a fresh application under Section 488 of the Cr PC for an order for maintenance and it was pleaded on behalf of the husband that the criminal Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for maintenance in view of the agreement arrived at by the parties in the earlier case. The view held by the Lahore High Court was placed before the learned Judge who heard the application for revision. He did not agree with the interpretation put by the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court and came to the conclusion that the words “mutual consent” meant the consent on the part of the husband and wife to live apart. The observations of Allsop, J. may be quoted with advantage:
“Where a wife refuses to live with her husband on some specific ground such as cruelty or the fact that he is keeping another woman, I do not think that it can be said that the husband and wife are living apart by mutual consent if the husband does not insist that the wife should live with him. If that expression had this meaning, a husband could, I imagine, defeat almost any conceivable application for maintenance under Section 488 of the Cr PC”
8. The words “mutual consent” imply that the desire to live apart should emanate from both parties and that none of them should be forced to take recourse to separate living and ultimately to submit to it only as a result of circumstances brought about by one of the parties. If a husband is unwilling to allow his wife to live with him, or has taken a second wife, the only course open to such a wife would be to live apart and if she, under those circumstances, agreed to accept maintenance and live separate, such a separate living would not be deemed to be the result of mutual consent. The test, therefore, should be to find out if the agreement for separate living and payment of maintenance was the outcome of the desire of both parties, independently reached by each of them, or if one of the parties was forced to submit by circumstances to agree to separate living and payment of maintenance. The view taken by Allosp, J. in — ‘AIR 1937 All 115 (E)’, appears, if I may say so with great respect, to be the correct view, and I find myself in complete agreement with it.
9. The applicant in the present case entered the witness-box and narrated her tale of woe and stated that she had been maltreated and turned out of the house, her husband had taken a second wife and she was thus driven by force of circumstances to separate living and had to accept maintenance given to her by her husband. The opposite party did not choose to enter the witness-box to controvert the statement made by the applicant. Besides the applicant there were three other witnesses who supported the applicant. The applicant was admittedly driven to take recourse to Courts of law on three different occasions in spite of the agreement, registered and unregistered, executed by the opposite party. No maintenance was paid to her for more than a year when she had to file a suit in 1938 and again in 1941. No doubt the pittance granted to her under the decree passed in 1941 has been paid by the opposite party except perhaps for a few months when the application, which has given rise to this revision, was made by the applicant.
10. If a party executes an agreement but does not pay maintenance or drives the wife to the necessity of filing a suit for recovery of maintenance from time to time and then takes protection under the provisions of Section 488(4) of the Cr PC for pleading a bar to the grant of relief to the wife, it would be difficult for a woman entitled to maintenance to get an effective remedy in Courts of law. Section 488 of the Cr PC has been enacted only to meet such contingencies and to save a party entitled to maintenance from a prolonged litigation and to get an effective remedy speedily and without much expense from a criminal Court.
11. It appears, therefore, that the view taken by the learned Magistrate and by the Sessions Judge does not appear to me to be correct. The words “mutual consent” mentioned in Section 488(4) of the Cr PC would apply to separate living if such separate living was the result of a desire of both parties and mere agreement to pay maintenance or to live separate would not bar an application under Section 488 of the Cr PC. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to an order of maintenance against the opposite party.
12. It remains to be seen what should be the proper amount which the opposite party should be ordered to pay to the applicant by way of maintenance. In fixing the maintenance the Court has to take into consideration not only the needs of the applicant but also the paying capacity and circumstances of the person liable to pay maintenance. In the present case the applicant has stated on oath that the opposite party is a vakil of standing and is possessed of considerable immoveable property in the shape of sir and khudkasht and houses and that the applicant should be paid a sum of Rs. 100/- per mensem as maintenance. The applicant has also produced a witness Gajodhar who supports her and states that the income of the opposite party is Rs. 1000/- per mensem. No particulars of the property have, however, been given by this witness.
13. As remarked above, the opposite party has not entered the witness-box to controvert the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant. He has been content with producing a witness Mahanidhi. He states that the opposite party resides in a rented house paying Rs. 10/- per mensem and that his income does not exceed Rs. 100/- or Rs. 125/- per mensem. In a matter like this both parties are act to exaggerate or minimise the circumstances and the financial position of the party liable to pay. The opposite party has to maintain his second wife and some children and taking all the circumstances into consideration it appears to me that a sum of Rs. 20/- per mensem should be paid to the applicant as maintenance. The order passed by the Magistrate is, therefore, set aside and the opposite party is ordered to pay Rs. 20/- per mensem to the applicant as maintenance with effect from the date of her application.
C/H.G.P
14. Order accordingly.
Alert