- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anil Kachwaha v. Smt. Sunita Kachwaha And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision challenges the maintenance order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in M.J.C No. 425/2007. The order required the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance sum of Rs. 8,000 divided as Rs. 3,000 for respondent No. 1 (R-1) and Rs. 2,500 each for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (R-2 and R-3) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The marriage between the petitioner and R-1 was solemnized on 5.2.1996, and they have two daughters, R-2 and R-3. The respondents had been residing at R-1's parental home in Jabalpur since 24.4.2006, brought there by R-1’s brothers. R-1 is a post-graduate in Geography, while R-2 and R-3 are students of Class IV and Nursery respectively. The petitioner had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against R-1 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Kota.
R-1 initiated proceedings on 8.7.2006 seeking Rs. 11,000 as maintenance alleging cruelty and dowry harassment since the start of the marriage, including specific incidents of quarrels, police involvement, and repeated returns to her parental home due to ill-treatment and dowry demands. The petitioner denied these allegations, attributing the discord to R-1’s misbehavior with his elderly mother and incompatibility, asserting his moral obligation to care for her.
Both parties testified and produced documents during the proceedings. A key document (Exh. P-2), a report allegedly submitted by R-1 to the police regarding dowry harassment, was challenged on authenticity and timing, as no earlier complaint had been made in the 11 years of marriage. The official police record (Rojnamcha) did not mention dowry harassment but stated that R-1 left due to the petitioner’s refusal to allow her to attend to her ailing father.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether R-1 was entitled to maintenance under section 125 CrPC despite having left the matrimonial home without justifiable ground.
- Whether the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance for the minor children R-2 and R-3 irrespective of the wife’s entitlement.
- The legitimacy and sufficiency of evidence regarding allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent No. 1 (R-1)'s Arguments
- Alleged cruelty and dowry harassment from the beginning of the marriage, including demands for a new car.
- Repeated ill-treatment and dowry torture forced her to leave the matrimonial home multiple times.
- Petitioner’s refusal to permit her to see her ailing father precipitated her final departure from the matrimonial home.
- Claimed maintenance of Rs. 11,000 per month for herself and the two daughters.
Petitioner's Arguments
- Denied allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment.
- Pointed out absence of earlier complaints or evidence supporting dowry harassment claims.
- Asserted that R-1 misbehaved with his elderly mother, causing marital discord.
- Maintained moral obligation to care for his aged mother and incompatibility with R-1 as reasons for separation.
- Challenged authenticity and timing of the police report submitted by R-1.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Smt. Saroj Devi v. Krishna Murari Tewari, 1980 All. LJ 447 | Conduct of not informing police about ill-treatment or dowry torture is not unusual or unnatural. | The court noted that the absence of earlier complaints did not necessarily negate the allegations but observed that the grievance was not projected earlier in any form. |
| Rajathi v. C. Ganesan | In proceedings under section 125 CrPC, only a prima facie view is necessary; detailed evidence need not be examined exhaustively. | The court applied this principle to avoid delving into minutiae of the matrimonial dispute, especially with a pending petition for restitution of conjugal rights. |
| Deb Narayan Haidar v. Anushree Haidar | Leaving matrimonial home without justifiable ground disentitles the wife from claiming maintenance. | The court held that R-1 was not entitled to maintenance as she had left the matrimonial home without justifiable cause. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the evidence, including testimonies and documents. It noted that the alleged dowry harassment complaint was made for the first time after 11 years of marriage, with no prior police complaints or corroborative evidence. The letters written by R-1 suggested that dowry greed was not the cause of disharmony. The petitioner’s denial of cruelty and evidence of R-1’s misbehavior towards his elderly mother were also considered. The court applied the principle from Rajathi v. C. Ganesan that only a prima facie view is needed under section 125 CrPC and refrained from probing the entire matrimonial dispute in detail, especially with a pending restitution petition.
The court found the order granting maintenance to R-1 to be apparently illegal or perverse because she had left the matrimonial home without justifiable ground. However, it recognized the statutory liability of the father to maintain the minor children irrespective of the wife’s entitlement. The quantum of maintenance for the children was found reasonable given the parties’ social background and standard of living.
Holding and Implications
The court partly allowed the revision petition. The maintenance order in favor of R-1 (wife) was set aside, while the maintenance order for R-2 and R-3 (minor children) was affirmed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the petitioner is no longer liable to pay maintenance to the wife but remains liable for the minor children. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles regarding abandonment of matrimonial home and maintenance obligations under section 125 CrPC.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.C Mishra, J.:— This revision has been preferred against the maintenance order dated 29.10.2007 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in M.J.C No. 425/2007, requiring the petitioner to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 8000/- (Rs. 3000/- for respondent No. 1 (for brevity “R-1”) and Rs. 2500/- each for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (for short “R-2 and R-3”) as maintenance allowance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The following facts are not in serious dispute:—
(i) On 5.2.1996, the marriage of R01 was solemnized with the petitioner.
3. In the wedlock, they have been blessed with two daughters viz., R-2 and R-3. The petitioner is presently posted as Executive Engineer in the Public Health and Engineering Department at Kota (Rajasthan). It was on 24.4.2006 that the respondents were brought to Jabalpur from Kota by Mahendra and Jitendra, the brothers or R-1. Since then, they have been residing at her parental home at Jabalpur only. R-1 is Post-Graduate in Geography whereas R-2 and R-3 are the students of Class IV and Nursery respectively. The petitioner has also filed a petition, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against R-1 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Kota.
(ii) On 8.7.2006, the proceedings for grant of a total amount of Rs. 11,000/- (Rs. 5000/- for herself and Rs. 3000/- for each one of the other respondents) as maintenance allowance were initiated by R-1. According to her, right from inception of the marital relationship, she had been subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment not only for bringing insufficient dowry but also due to non-fulfilment of demand for a new car. In this regard, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with her even in the presence of her parents on 22.5.1997 at Kota and, ultimately, with the help of police, she was taken to parental home at Jabalpur where she had to reside with R-2 for a period of 11 months. Thereafter, in the wake of undertaking given by the non-applicant/petitioner that ill-treatment would not continue any further, she was again sent to her matrimonial home. However, there was no improvement in the behaviourial pattern and, eventually, his mother asked the brother of R-1 to take her back and send only after a new car was made available. Thus, she was again compelled to live with her parents at Jabalpur for a period of 6 months and upon a fresh assurance given by the petitioner to mend his ways, agreed to return to the matrimonial home where she was again subjected to dowry torture. It was against this backdrop that upon the petitioner's refusal to send her to Jabalpur to see her ailing father, she was left with no option but to leave her matrimonial house with her brothers on 24.4.2006 after informing the police accordingly.
(iii) In reply, the petitioner specifically denied the allegations as to cruelty and dowry harassment. Attention was also invited to the fact that no complaint regarding alleged ill-treatment on account of dowry demand was made at an earlier occasion. As per his version, R-1 used to misbehave with his parents; give threats to get them detained in prison and one of the incidents of quarrel attributable to her had resulted into death of his father. According to him, R-1 had left matrimonial home because of incompatibility with his mother, who is presently aged about 72 years, whereas being the only son, he is under a moral obligation to take care of her.
4. Both the wife and the husband preferred to prove the respective pleadings by entering into witness box and producing the relevant documents. However, one of the documents, marked as Em. P-2, was the subject-matter of objection raised during chief-examination of R-1 on the ground that no reason was assigned for not filing the same at an earlier stage. The document is in the form of the carbon copy of the report said to have been submitted by R-1 on 24.4.2006 before SHO, P.S Mahaveer Nagar, Kota. Its authenticity has been questioned in the light of the recitals of the report entered at Sl. No. 1697 on the same day in the Rojnamcha. It is relevant to note that Rojnamcha report, copy of which is placed on record as Exh. D-4, does not contain any reference to the dowry harassment. On the contrary, it was categorically mentioned therein that, in the wake of husband's refusal to permit her to look after her ailing father, the wife was compelled to leave his house. On these facts, even assuming that the original of the document (Exh. P-2) was presented before the SHO, it happened to be the first report regarding alleged dowry harassment during a considerable span of 11 years of the marital life.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Saroj Devi…Applicant; v. Krishna Murari Tewari…. . 1980 All. LJ 447, has strenuously contended that the conduct of not informing the police about the ill-treatment or dowry torture meted out to R-1 was not unusual or unnatural. However, the fact of the matter is that the grievance against cruel treatment in the matrimonial home was not projected at any earlier point of time in any other manner or form whatsoever. Moreover, the contents of the letters (Exhs. D-1, D-2 and D-3), written by R-1 to her father, husband and parents-in-law respectively at different occasions, clearly suggested that the alleged greed for dowry was not the cause of disharmony in the marital relationship. This apart, no evidence was led to establish the nature and illness of R-1's father and the circumstances preceding her leaving of matrimonial home on 24.4.2006 despite the fact that the same could be duly proved by examining her brothers namely Mahendra and Jitendra.
6. The petitioner, in his sworn testimony, has clearly refuted the allegations as to dowry harassment. According to him, R-1 used to ill-treat his mother who is totally dependent on him only. In para 23 of her cross-examination, R-1 also candidly admitted that the best period of her marital life was spent at Ratangarh where she had the occasion to live with her husband and daughters only.
7. As cautioned by the Apex Court in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan. it is not necessary to examine the entire evidence threadbare in a case under section 125 of the Code as only a prima facie view of the matter is taken. Therefore, it would not be desirable to enter into the minutest details of the matrimonial dispute, particularly when the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Competent Court. However, in the light of the evidence brought on record, the finding that a separate stay of the wife was justified due to alleged dowry torture is, on the face of it, apparently illegal or perverse. Accordingly, R-1 is not entitled to claim maintenance in view of the fact that she had left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground [Deb Narayan Haidar v. Anushree Haidar)2 referred to. Nevertheless, this finding is not sufficient to disentitle her from claiming maintenance for the minor children viz., R-2 and R-3 as their custody is immaterial for determining the statutory liability of the father. The corresponding quantum of maintenance can also not be termed as excessive in the light of social background and standard of living of the parties.
8. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The impugned order of maintenance so far as it relates to R-1 namely Smt. Sunita Kachwaha is set aside whereas the remaining part of the order concerning R-2 and R-3 viz., Ku. Ankita Kachwaha and Ku. Akshita Kachwaha respectively is hereby affirmed.
9. Revision partly allowed.
10. Revision Allowed.
Alert