- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sanjay Chopra v. Shyama
Judgment Summary — M.L. Singhal, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The wife, Smt. Shyama, married Sanjay Chopra on 20.4.1992; a child, Divya Chopra, was born on 18.1.1994. Shyama's parents had spent Rs. 3.00 lakhs and given gifts at the time of marriage. According to the wife, Sanjay Chopra, his father and unmarried sister began taunting her that she had not brought adequate dowry and demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. When her parents could not fulfil the demand she alleged maltreatment, harassment, physical beating and that the husband was a drug-addict. She returned to her parents' home on 18.8.1994 with the child and since then the husband had not returned to the matrimonial home nor sent maintenance. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 500 per month for herself and Rs. 400 per month for the child.
The husband contested the claim, denied the allegations of dowry demand, maltreatment and drug addiction, and contended the wife was gainfully employed as a senior commerce teacher earning approximately Rs. 3,672 plus Rs. 3,000 from tuition. He further stated he went to bring her back on 9.10.1994 but she refused.
The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon allowed maintenance to the wife at Rs. 400 per month and to the child at Rs. 300 per month, with specified effective dates. The husband filed a revision against that order before this Court seeking its setting aside.
On motion the revision was dismissed in respect of the child (holding that a father must maintain a child wherever the child resides). The husband asserted that he had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from an Additional District Judge in Delhi (4.9.1996) and that the decree showed the wife had withdrawn without reasonable cause, which, he argued, negated the Criminal Court's finding that he neglected to maintain her. The matter proceeded on notice to the wife in respect of the grant of maintenance to her alone.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the husband's decree for restitution of conjugal rights (obtained in a civil/matrimonial forum) prevents or defeats the wife's claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
- Whether an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights (or a decree obtained without a specific adjudication on the wife's refusal to live with the husband after opportunity for evidence) is binding on a Criminal Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
- Whether, in the facts of this case, the husband's conduct (including whether he called upon the wife to resume conjugal society after obtaining the decree) affects the wife's entitlement to maintenance?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Husband's) Arguments
- The wife could not be allowed maintenance when the husband had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights (Additional District Judge, Delhi, 4.9.1996), which established that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause.
- Reliance on Sher Singh v. Rajwinder Kaur, 1997 (1) CLR 164 — authority for cancelling an order for interim maintenance after a decree of restitution and on Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. as grounds to revoke maintenance.
- Reliance on Ravendra Kaur v. Achant Swarup, 1966 Cr LJ 247 — where a decree for judicial separation barred maintenance by the wife; the Magistrate must take notice of Civil Court decisions (cited via Section 489(2) old Cr.P.C.).
- Denial of allegations: he denied neglecting or refusing maintenance, denied dowry demands, denied being a drug-addict, and contended the wife was gainfully employed.
Respondent's (Wife's) Arguments
- An ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights would not be binding on the Criminal Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless the Civil Court had specifically framed and decided the issue whether the wife withdrew without reasonable cause after giving parties opportunity to lead evidence.
- Reliance on Ravi Kumar v. Santosh Kumari, 1997 (3) RCR (Criminal) 4 and on the principle that a husband who files restitution proceedings as a counterblast to a maintenance application may be acting mala fide (citing Jagdish Kumar v. Munish Kumari, 1986 (1) All India HLR 410).
- Submission that the husband did not call upon the wife to resume conjugal society after obtaining the decree and therefore it cannot be said she withdrew without reasonable cause; execution proceedings could still permit the wife to show sufficient cause, especially where the decree was ex-parte.
- Contest as to wife's present employment: counsel for wife submitted her services were terminated in May 1995 and that she was not employed thereafter; husband had alleged income but there was limited documentary proof of wife's assets or operation of bank accounts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sher Singh v. Rajwinder Kaur, 1997 (1) CLR 164 | Authority where ad-interim maintenance was quashed after decree for restitution of conjugal rights; used to support that Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. can be invoked to revoke maintenance where decree for restitution exists. | Relied upon by the husband. The court acknowledged the decision (and that in that case interim maintenance was quashed) but considered its principle in the context of the present facts and ultimately found the decree for restitution obtained by the husband would have no effect on the wife's maintenance claim in this case. |
| Teja Singh v. Smt. Chhoto Wife Of Teja Singh, 1981 (IV) Marriage Law Journal 400 | Support for viewing findings of matrimonial/civil courts as binding on Magistrates in certain contexts (treating the matrimonial court akin to a "Civil Court"). | Cited in argument (via Sher Singh). The court considered the principle but did not treat the civil decree as determinative in these facts, given the circumstances described in the record (ex-parte decree and lack of execution steps). |
| Ravendra Kaur v. Achant Swarup, 1966 Criminal Law Journal 247 | Held that if a husband had obtained decree for judicial separation, the wife could not claim maintenance; Magistrate required to take notice of Civil Court decision (Section 489(2) old Cr.P.C.). | Presented by the husband to support his submission. The court considered the authority but, on the facts before it (including the nature and conduct surrounding the restitution decree), concluded that the restitutory decree did not bar maintenance here. |
| Ravi Kumar v. Santosh Kumari, 1997 (3) RCR (Criminal) 4 | Authority to support the proposition that an ex-parte decree or a decree without specific adjudication on wife's withdrawal may not bind the Criminal Court exercising Section 125 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. | Relied on by the respondent. The court accepted the relevance of this view in determining that the husband's decree would not, in these circumstances, defeat the wife's maintenance claim. |
| Jagdish Kumar v. Munish Kumari, 1986 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 410 | Holding that where a husband files restitution proceedings as a counterblast to an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the husband's petition may be regarded as mala fide to avoid maintenance. | Invoked by the respondent to argue the husband's restitution petition could have been mala fide and therefore should not defeat the maintenance claim; the court noted the possibility of such conduct as relevant to its assessment of the effect of the decree. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first identified the husband's core submission that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights established the wife's withdrawal without reasonable cause and therefore undermined the Criminal Court's finding of neglect to maintain. The husband relied upon authorities (including Sher Singh and Ravendra Kaur) for the proposition that civil decrees affecting matrimonial obligations should be given effect against a criminal court's maintenance determination.
The wife countered that an ex-parte decree or a decree obtained without a specific issue and an opportunity to lead evidence on the question whether the wife had refused to live with the husband would not be binding on the Criminal Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She also argued that the restitution proceedings were mala fide and filed to defeat maintenance, and that the husband had not taken steps to execute the decree to call upon the wife to resume conjugal society.
The court analysed these submissions and the authorities cited. It observed that where the husband obtains a decree but does not call upon the wife to resume conjugal society (including by execution of the decree), it cannot be said that the wife withdrew without reasonable cause. The court emphasised that an ex-parte decree, or a decree without a specific finding on the wife's unjustified withdrawal after opportunity for evidence, does not automatically negate the wife's entitlement under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
As to the parties' financial positions, the court noted conflicting claims: the husband had variously been said to earn Rs. 10,000 per month in the wife's pleading, but in his own statement he stated Rs. 2,000 per month; the wife's employment was said by the husband to exist but the wife asserted her services were terminated in May 1995 and there was no convincing evidence of her operating bank accounts or possessing share certificates. The court observed that people often understate income when called upon to discharge liabilities, and that the husband's liability to maintain his wife arose from the concept of marriage itself.
Weighing the submissions and authorities, and applying the factual matrix (including the ex-parte nature and absence of execution steps for the restitution decree), the court concluded that the decree for restitution obtained by the husband did not affect the wife's claim for maintenance in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Holding and Implications
Holding: REVISION DISMISSED. The revision filed by Sanjay Chopra seeking to set aside the Magistrate's order granting maintenance to his wife was dismissed.
Implications:
- The Magistrate's order allowing maintenance to the wife (Rs. 400 per month) and to the child (Rs. 300 per month) remains in force as to the wife and the child (the revision had earlier been dismissed in respect of the child on motion).
- The court held that obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights (particularly if ex-parte or obtained without a specific adjudication on the wife's withdrawal and without execution steps to call her to resume conjugal society) does not necessarily bar maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; in the facts of this case the decree had no effect on the maintenance claim.
- No expansive new legal principle was announced beyond the application of existing authorities and the court's factual distinctions; the decision is confined to the direct effect on the parties (i.e., the maintenance order stands) and explains circumstances in which a civil decree for restitution will not automatically defeat a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Revision dismissed.
M.L Singhal, J.:— Smt. Shyama was married to Sanjay Chopra at Delhi on 20.4.1992 On 18.1.1994, Divya Chopra was born to them. Shyama's parents spent a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs on her fnarriage. They gave gold ornaments, precious clothes etc. in marriage. Still, Sanjay Chopra, his father and unmarried sister started taunting her that she had not brought adequate dowry. They put forth demand for Rs. 2 lacs on her as Sanjay Chopra was to expand his business. Her parents were not in a position to fulfil this demand. Smt. Shyma brought home to them that her parents had already spent enough on her marriage and they were not in a position to fulfil the demand. She was maltreated, harassed and taunted. She was also beaten. Sanjay Chopra was a drug-addict. She kept tolerating all this in the hope that better sense might prevail upon them and they would develop kindly attitude towards her full of love and affection. Child was born to her at Delhi in the hospital. Her mother came to Delhi in the hospital but she was insulted by Sanjay Chopra, his father and sister. When the child had grown two months old, she was asked to go to her parents, demand (sic). On 9.10.1994, he alongwith (sic) Rs. 2 lacs was also reiterated. It may also be mentioned here that Sanjay is Delhi based and he resides at Delhi. On 18.8.1994, she sought her in-laws' permission to visit on her parents on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, she accordingly came to her parents. She was not allowed to take any article with her. Respondent repeated his demand at the house of her parents also who explained their inability to fulfil his demand. Sanjay Chopra told her parents that if his demand was not fulfilled, she would not be allowed to enter the matrimonial home. Ever-since 18.8.1994, she has been putting up with her parents alongwith her child. During this period, Sanjay Chopra has not come to the matrimonial home. He has not sent any maintenance to them. She has to source of income. She owns no property. She is unable to maintain herself and the child. On the other hand, respondent had a Printing Press, Photostat and Lamination business and is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He can well maintain her and the child. He has intentionally and wilfully neglected them and has refused to maintain them. On these allegations, she filed application against Sanjay under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance for herself and for her child at the rate of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- respectively per month.
2. Sanjay Chopra contested her claim to maintenance. It was denied that he ever neglected and refused to maintain Shyama and the child. It was denied that he or his parents ever put forth any demand for Rs. 2 lacs. It was denied that he or his parents ever expressed that the dowry brought by her was inadequate. It was denied that he was a drug-addict. On 9.10.1994, he alongwith aunt of the mediator and the son-in-law of the mediator went to the house of her parents with a view, to bring her back to the matrimonial home but she refused to accompany him to the matrimonial home that she was working in a school at Ludhiana. It was further alleged that she is gainfully employed as Senior Commerce teacher at K.V.M School, Ludhiana and is earning about Rs. 3672/- per month. She earns another Rs. 3000/- per month from tuition work. She is thus in a position to maintain herself and the child. It was denied that he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month.
3. On the conclusion of the trial of this application, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon accepted this application and allowed maintenance to Smt. Shyama at the rate of Rs. 400/- and to the child at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month payable with effect from the date of application so far as child is concerned, payable to the wife with effect from 10.5.1995 i.e when her services were terminated.
4. Sanjay Chopra has come up in revision to this Court against the order of the Magistrate dated 11.6.1998 granting maintenance to the wife and the child and has prayed that this order be set aside.
5. On the motion stage, this revision was dismissed so far as the grant of maintenance to the child is concerned because the child has to be maintained by his/her father wherever he/she is i.e whether he/she is with the father or he/she is with the mother. Notice of motion was issued to the respondent/wife qua the grant of maintenance to her alone as the contention raised by the husband was that there is decree for restitution of conjugal right in his favour against the wife passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against the wife shows that she has withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause or excuse and as such the finding of the Criminal Court that Sanjay (husband) has neglected to maintain the wife (Shyama) cannot hold the field.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) submitted that the wife could not be allowed maintenance against the husband when the husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against her at Delhi urging that wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause or excuse and that he was always ready and willing to keep her and maintain her and had obtained decree for restitution of conjugal rights in his favour from the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi on 4.9.1996 vide Annexure P-2. In support of this submission he has drawn my attention to Sher Singh… v. Rajwinder Kaur…., 1997 (1) CLR 164. It has been submitted that in Annexure P-2, Additional District Judge, Delhi, has observed that the husband is not bound to put up with the wife at Ludhiana where she has taken up the job of a teacher. It was also observed that the wife has to put up with the husband at the place where husband wants her to reside with him and cohabit with him. Husband has a right to require his wife to live with him wherever he may choose to reside and the wife is not absolved from discharging her corresponding duty. Wife cannot refuse to reside with the husband at the place which is the matrimonial home chosen by the husband and discharge her marital duties there. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the face of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the order of maintenance in favour of the wife by the Criminal Court cannot be sustained. In Sher Singh… v. Rajwinder Kaur…. (supra) it was held that after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the husband was justified in applying for revoking the order as per Section 127(2) of the Code.
8. In 1997 (1) CLR 164 (supra) wife had been allowed ad-interim maintenance. Husband made an application under Section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the order of ad-interim maintenance in view of his having obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. S.S Sudhalkar, J. of this Court quashed the order granting interim maintenance to the wife while accepting the plea of the husband. It was held by S.S Sudhalkar, J. that matrimonial Court is akin to “Civil Court”. Finding of the Matrimonial Court has to be viewed as the finding of the Civil Court and is binding on the Magistrate. Reliance was placed on Teja Singh… v. Smt. Chhoto Wife Of Teja Singh…., 1981 (IV) Marriage Law Journal 400 by S.S Sudhalkar, J.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ravendra Kaur v. Achant Swarup, 1966 Criminal Law Journal 247 to fortify the aforesaid submission where it was held that if the husband had obtained decree for judicial separation against his wife, no maintenance could be claimed by her. It was held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance and Magistrate was bound to take notice of the decision of the Civil Court as provided under Section 489(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) even though there was no specific application under that section before him.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in case the husband has got an ex-parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights, it shall not be binding on the Criminal Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C, unless in the proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights a specific issue had been framed on the point as to whether without any sufficient reason, wife refused to live with the husband and the parties had been given an opportunity to lead evidence and, thereafter, a specific finding is recorded by the Civil Court. He sought to draw support for this submission from a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ravi Kumar v. Santosh Kumari, 1997 (3) RCR (Criminal) 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Delhi on 12.7.1995, when proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C had been filed by the wife against him on 29.11.1994 and he had appeared before the court on 16.1.1995 It has been submitted by him that proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights were filed by the husband mala fide with intent to defeat the wife's claim to maintenance. It was held in Jagdish Kumar v. Munish Kumari, 1986 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 410, that where husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights as counter-blast to the application filed against him under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, husband's claim would be viewed as mala fide filed to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife. It has been further submitted that the mere obtaining of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband will not suggest that the wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause or excuse. Husband is not shown to have called upon the wife through the process of executing the decree that she should be called upon to resume conjugal society. It has been submitted that if the husband had sought the execution of the decree and prayed that the wife be called upon to resume conjugal society with him and the wife and refused to resume conjugal society with him without any plausible cause, if could have been said that the withdrawal from the society of the husband on her part was unjustified and while husband was ready to take the wife to the matrimonial home. Husband, to my mind, has not called upon the wife to resume conjugal society with him after he had obtained the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and therefore, it cannot be said that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause or excuse. In the execution proceedings also the wife could urge that her withdrawal from the society of the husband was for sufficient cause or excuse, more particularly when it was an ex-parte decree.
11. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the obtaining of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband would have no effect on the wife's claim to maintenance.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wife is M. Com., B.Ed She was posted in K.V.M School, Ludhiana and was thus gainfully employed. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that her services were terminated in May, 1995 and since after May, 1995, she is not employed anywhere. It was further submitted that she has shares and bank accounts. Suffice it to say, there is no evidence that she is in possession of the share certificate or the bank passbooks and cash books. She never operated the bank account. Husband is gainfully employed.
13. On his own showing, he stated that he is earning Rs. 2000/- per month. It is generally seen that where a person is called upon to discharge his liability, he understates his income. Sanjay Chopra is liable to maintain his wife whom he has married. Liability to maintain the wife arises from the very concept of marriage. Maintenance allowed to the wife and the child is not on higher side. So, this revision fails and is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.
Alert