Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Revision No. 247 of 1984

Judges

P.C Misra, J.

Acts

SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
provisions of this Section (Section 125, Cr. P.C)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (P.C. Misra, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance of Rs. 250 per month from the present opposite party on the ground that she was his wife and had been neglected and not maintained by him. The petitioner alleged that they married according to caste and custom and cohabited for years, but she was gradually ill‑treated and assaulted by the opposite party and his mother. In mid‑1981 an assault allegedly affected her left eye, for which she received hospital treatment (6‑6‑1981 to 12‑7‑1981) but lost the eye. After discharge the opposite party refused to accept her at his house, and she has since been living with her mother. She sent a legal notice on 19‑1‑1982; the opposite party did not respond. The petitioner further alleged that the opposite party remarried on 5‑4‑1982 and claimed he earned about Rs. 700 (or Rs. 800 in later evidence) per month.

The opposite party in his written objection admitted cohabitation as husband and wife though denied a legal marriage, denied assault, denied causing loss of her eye, alleged she was teased by villagers and left voluntarily, and asserted that she was able to earn and maintain herself. He also denied the second marriage and said he would take her back provided she was willing, but claimed inability to maintain her and sought dismissal of the application.

Both parties led evidence before the learned Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.). The S.D.J.M. held that the petitioner was the legally married wife of the opposite party but dismissed the maintenance claim, finding that ill‑treatment was not proved and that the petitioner was capable of earning her livelihood. The petitioner challenged that order by way of revision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner, established to be in the status of the opposite party's wife, is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the petitioner had sufficient justification for living separately from the opposite party (i.e., whether she was refused to live with him without sufficient cause), including whether alleged ill‑treatment and assault were proved.
Whether the petitioner's apparent ability to do manual labour and earn a living disentitles her to maintenance from the opposite party.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

She married the opposite party according to caste and custom and they lived as husband and wife for years.
She was ill‑treated and assaulted frequently by the opposite party and his mother; an assault in 1981 caused impairment/blindness of her left eye for which she was hospitalized from 6‑6‑1981 to 12‑7‑1981.
After hospital discharge the opposite party refused to admit her into his house and she has been living with her mother since.
Attempts at reconciliation failed at the instance of the opposite party; she served a notice on 19‑1‑1982 which went unanswered.
The opposite party remarried (alleged) and is a businessman earning sufficient income (claimed around Rs. 700–800 per month); she sought Rs. 250 per month maintenance.

Opposite Party's Arguments

He denied the allegations of assault and denied causing the loss of the petitioner's eye.
He admitted cohabitation but denied a legal marriage; he alternatively asserted the petitioner was capable of earning and maintaining herself.
He contended the petitioner left voluntarily because villagers teased her for physical deformity; he also denied the second marriage and stated willingness to take her back if she consented.
He claimed he was unable to maintain the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by first addressing the status of the relationship. The S.D.J.M.'s finding that the petitioner was the wife of the opposite party was accepted by the revisional court, especially given the opposite party's admission of cohabitation for many years in his written objection and the evidence pointing to a husband‑wife relationship. The Court rejected the opposite party's contention that they were merely living together without legal marriage.

The Court analyzed entitlement under section 125 Cr.P.C., observing that once the husband‑wife relationship exists, the husband's obligation to maintain the wife follows and that Section 125 provides an independent statutory right to maintenance irrespective of personal law. The Court noted sub‑section (4) of Section 125 which disqualifies a wife from maintenance if she is living in adultery, or has without sufficient reason refused to live with her husband, or where the separation is by mutual consent. Because there was no allegation that the petitioner lived in adultery or that separation was by mutual consent, the central factual question was whether she had sufficient reason to live separately.

The revisional court criticized the trial court's approach of requiring corroboration from neighbours to prove ill‑treatment. It explained that social conditions often prevent a wife from communicating with her in‑laws' neighbours, and that corroboration is not an absolute prerequisite; a court may rely on truthful, believable uncorroborated testimony of the wife in appropriate cases.

On the facts, the Court observed that the opposite party had not explained how or when the petitioner lost vision in one eye nor what treatment was given, and had advanced what the Court regarded as an improbable plea that she left voluntarily because of teasing. The Court held that, even if teasing occurred, the opposite party had a duty to protect her from criticism by villagers given her disability. Considering the broad circumstances and the evidence, the Court concluded that the petitioner had sufficient justification to live separately and therefore was not barred under sub‑section (4) from claiming maintenance.

With respect to the trial court's finding that the petitioner could maintain herself (based on observing red‑stained hands suggesting she coloured threads), the revisional court found that conclusion unsustainable. It noted that capacity to earn a bare living does not defeat the right to maintenance: inability to maintain oneself is not to be judged solely by capacity to make some living, nor must a petitioner be absolutely destitute to claim maintenance. Accordingly, the Court found the petitioner was entitled to maintenance.

For quantum, the Court reviewed conflicting evidence about the opposite party's income: petitioner claimed Rs. 800; one witness for petitioner testified to about Rs. 650 per month; another said Rs. 300 per week; the opposite party claimed Rs. 5 per day and one opposite party witness corroborated Rs. 5–7 per day. The Court found the petitioner's evidence more acceptable and fixed the opposite party's monthly income at not less than Rs. 500 after allowing for possible exaggeration. Considering the circumstances, the Court awarded Rs. 100 per month to the petitioner, effective from the date of her application in the court below.

The revisional court therefore set aside the S.D.J.M.'s order dismissing maintenance and allowed the revision. The Court declined to grant costs of this Court.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: Revision allowed; the impugned order of the S.D.J.M. is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 100 per month effective from the date of her application.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The petitioner's maintenance claim succeeds in part — she is awarded Rs. 100 per month from the date of her application in the court below.
The S.D.J.M.'s dismissal of the maintenance claim is set aside.
The Court made no order as to costs in the revisional proceedings.

Broader implications: The opinion reiterates that Section 125 Cr.P.C. confers an independent statutory right to maintenance once the marital relationship is established and that a wife's uncorroborated testimony may be relied upon in appropriate circumstances; however, the opinion does not purport to lay down any new binding precedent beyond its application to the facts of this case.

Show full summary ...

Saraswati Meher v. Jadumani Meher Opp. Party.

P.C Misra, J.:— This is a revision challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh passed on the petitioner's application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She filed the said application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the present opp. party on the ground that she is his wife and that she has been neglected to be maintained by him.

2. The petitioner alleged that she married the opp. party in accordance with their caste and custom and they lived as husband and wife for some years. Gradually the opp. party and his mother ill-treated the petitioner and she was assaulted on many occasions. She was not liked in the family of her in laws, as no child was born to her. In course of time ill-treatment reached at such a stage that it became impossible on her part to tolerate. In the middle of the year 1981, she was assaulted by the opp. party by which her left eye was affected for which no treatment was carried on at the instance of the opp. party. It is the brother of the petitioner, who took her to the hospital where she became an indoor patient from 6-6-1981 to 12-7-1981, but the treatment could not save her eye. After being discharged from the hospital, she was taken to the house of the opp. party but the opp. party refused to accept her and did not allow her to remain in his house. Since then the petitioner has been residing with her mother. It has been further alleged that all attempts for a reconciliation have failed at the instance of the opp. party. The petitioner had sent a notice on 19-1-1982 to the opp. party through her Advocate and there was no response by the opp. party to the same. According to the petitioner, the opp. party has married again to one Samari Meher, daughter of Dasarath Meher on 5-4-1982 and they have been living as husband and wife. It has been alleged that the opp. party is a business man, whose monthly income is about Rs. 700/- out of which the petitioner claim Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance. The opp. party in his objection against the said application denied all her allegations. The opp. party admitted that he had been living with the petitioner as husband and wife though there was no legal marriage between them. He denies to have assaulted the petitioner. He further admits that the petitioner was blind by her left eye which was not a result of the alleged assault. It is alleged that she was teased by the villagers for her physical defirmity which she could not bear and left the village. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance as she has been working and earning sufficient money to meet her maintenance. The opp. party denied the second marriage and maintained that he is willing to take the petitioner back, provided the latter is willing. He expressed his inability to maintain the petitioner in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and prayed for dismissal of the application.

3. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned S.D.J.M in the impugned judgment came to hold that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opp. party but dismissed the prayer for grant of maintenance on the ground that the plea of ill-treatment has not been proved and that the petitioner herself is capable of and in fact earning her own livelihood. The said finding regarding the status of the petitioner as the married wife of the opp. party is not seriously disputed, in view of the admission in the objection filed by the opp. party in the court below that he had been living with the petitioner as husband and wife for many years. Regarding of the evidence adduced in the case by the petitioner would lead to an irresistible conclusion of their legal relationship as husband and wife. The plea of the opp. party that both were living together without a legal marriage must be discarded.

4. The only question which remains to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said Section deals with the powers of a Magistrate of the First Class to order payment of maintenance to the wife, and other dependants mentioned therein under certain circumstances. Once the relationship of husband and wife is established, it is obligatory on the part of the husband to maintain the wife and other dependants enumerated in the Section. Sub-section (4) of that Section, however, provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive any maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason she refused to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. It is not a case of the opp. party that the petitioner has been living in adultery or that she has been living separately pursuant to any mutual arrangement. Therefore, in terms of the Section the petitioner would be entitled to maintenance unless it is proved that she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason.

5. The right of a wife for maintenance is an incidence of the status or estate of matrimony. According to the text of Hindu Law to which the parties belong, the obligation to maintain the wife arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties. Apart from the liability which the husband incurs under the personal law of maintaining his wife, the provisions of this Section (Section 125, Cr. P.C) are independent of personal law or any custom governing the parties. The right to be maintained under this Section is a distinct statutory right which has been recognized as the part of the law irrespective of the nationality or the creed of the parties. The only condition precedent for application of this Section is the existence of the relationship of the petitioner with the opp. party as his wife. All that is said in sub-section (4) of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code is that a wife shall not be entitled to live separately from her husband without any justifying cause and claim maintenance from her husband. The justifying cause need not always be confined to ill-treatment or cruelty on the part of the husband.

6. The learned trial court has not accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner to prove that she was ill-treated by the opp. party mainly on the ground that the said fact has not been deposed to by the neighbours of the opp. party. The learned S.D.J.M does not appear to have been alive to the prevailing conditions of the society in which the wife is placed under many restrictions and is often rendered helpless. She does not possess the right to communicate with the neighbours of her-in-laws and at times such communication, if made, brings her further torture and harassment. It is equally difficult for a wife who has been living separately from her husband under compelling circumstances to examine the persons from the locality where the husband lives to support her cause. In fit cases therefore, it is permissible for a court to rely even on the uncorroborated testimony of the wife, to grant her maintenance u/s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provided her evidence is truthful and believable.

7. In the application u/s. 125 of the Cr. P.C there was categorical allegation by the petitioner that she used to be often assaulted by the opp. party and as a consequence of the assault in the middle of the year 1981 one of her eyes was affected leading to her blindness by one eye. Though the said allegation was denied by the opp. party, nothing was disclosed in the objection as to how and when the petitioner lost one of her eyes or as to what treatment was carried on to save her eye. In this case the opp. party took a false plea that she was not his legally married wife and did not breathe a word as to when and under what circumstances her eye was lost. I do not find a grain of truth in the plea taken by the opp. party that she voluntarily left the house of the opp. party as she was teased by the villagers for having lost one of her eyes. Even if that be the case, it was the duty of the opp. party to protect her from any criticism because of her physical disability by the villagers. The broad circumstances and the evidence adduced in the case do not make the aforesaid plea of the opp. party probable or believable. I would, therefore, conclude that the petitioner had sufficient justification to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance from him.

8. The learned court below came to a finding that the petitioner has been maintaining herself by her manual labour and for that reason she is not entitled to any maintenance. Having gone through the evidence, I am of the view that the said finding cannot be maintained. The learned S.D.J.M in the impugned order has mentioned that he had noticed the hands of the petitioner to have stained with red colour suggesting that she has been working in colouring threads and was capable to maintain herself. Inability to maintain herself cannot be judged in the light of her capacity to make a living nor does it mean that she should be absolutely a destitute so as to be entitled to the maintenance. Assuming that the petitioner has been doing some manual labour after being refused a shelter in her husband's place to make out a bare living, she would not forfeit her right to maintenance from her husband. In the facts and circumstences of this case, it is appropriate that the petitioner should be allowed maintenance.

9. As regards the quantum of maintenance, it is in the evidence of the petitioner that the monthly income of the opp. party is about Rs. 800/- The evidence of p.w 1, who is a weaver and is engaged in similar work as the opp. party, shows that he earns about Rs. 160/- per week which comes to about Rs. 650/- a month. According to p.w 4, who is also a weaver, the income of the opp. party is about Rs. 300/- per week. The opp. party, however, in his evidence claim to be earning Rs. 5/- per day. O.P.W 2 is the only witness, who corroborates the opp. party saying that he earns Rs. 5/- to Rs. 7/- per day as a labourer. The evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner appears to me to be more acceptable than that of the opp. party. The monthly income of the opp. party cannot be less than Rs. 500/- per month giving all allowances for the possibilities of exaggeration in the evidence adduced in the court below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I would hold that the petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance which should be effective from the date of the petitioner's application in the court below. I would, there fore, allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order for costs of this Court.

10. Revision allowed.

Saraswati Meher v. Jadumani Meher Opp. Party.

Structured Summary of the Opinion (P.C. Misra, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Opposite Party's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Saraswati Meher v. Jadumani Meher Opp. Party.

Comments