- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rewalal v. Urmila
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision arises under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 19(4) of the Family Court Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Family Court, Jabalpur's order dated 21.05.2007 in M.J.C. No. 250/04 which allowed an application filed by the respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800 per month to the respondent and Rs. 800 per month to the respondent's minor daughter.
The matrimonial facts stated in the opinion: the parties were married on 24.04.1996 and had two daughters. The respondent says the parties lived together peacefully for about two years but, thereafter, the petitioner began to harass and beat her; on 16.01.2004 she was allegedly beaten and driven out and has since been living with her parents with one minor daughter. The respondent alleged the petitioner had illicit relations with another woman (named Suhagabai) and that she lacked means to maintain herself while the petitioner (a teacher) has means.
The petitioner denied the allegations, contending the respondent voluntarily lives separately, that he has not been cruel to her and is willing to live with her; he had applied under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree which the respondent did not comply with. Both parties led oral evidence: Urmila Bai (AW‑1) and Pusiya Bai (AW‑2) for the respondent; Rewalal Sarote (NW‑1) and Ayodhya Singh (NW‑2) for the petitioner. The family court, after appreciating the evidence, allowed the respondent's application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted the maintenance amounts noted above. The petitioner challenged that order by way of this revision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the family court committed any illegality in allowing the respondent's application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directing maintenance to the respondent and her minor daughter?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner did not object to maintenance for the minor daughter but challenged maintenance awarded to the respondent (wife).
- He contended that the respondent voluntarily chose to live separately and had refused to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights (obtained under section 9, Hindu Marriage Act), so she should not be entitled to maintenance.
- He relied on the decision in Balakram vs. Smt. Durgabai (2007 (1) MPWN 10) to support the proposition that a wife who does not join her husband despite a decree of restitution is not entitled to maintenance.
- He argued there was no evidence that the petitioner subjected the respondent to cruelty or physically assaulted her.
- He contended the family court erred in not addressing the effect of the decree in the matrimonial proceeding (H.M. Act Case No. 42A/04) and in awarding maintenance to the respondent.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent maintained she is living separately because of the petitioner's misbehavior and maltreatment; she alleged she was beaten and driven out on 16.01.2004 and fears for her safety if she returns.
- She alleged the petitioner made baseless allegations about her character (that she had illicit relations with a person named Vijay), and she said the petitioner himself had illicit relations with another woman (Suhagabai); these facts constitute cruelty and provide just grounds for refusing to live with him.
- The respondent relied on Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, 2008 (1) CCSC 384 (SC) to support the application of section 125 as a social‑justice provision and to justify the grant of maintenance.
- She contended the family court had not committed any illegality and its order did not call for interference.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Balakram vs. Smt. Durgabai, 2007 (1) MPWN 10 | Authority for the proposition that a wife who does not join her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights may not be entitled to maintenance. | The court noted the decision but found it distinguishable on the facts of the present case and therefore did not apply it to deny maintenance to the respondent. |
| Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, 2008 (1) CCSC 384 (SC) | Explains that section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution; it falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39, and provides a speedy remedy to supply food, clothing and shelter to a deserted wife. | The court relied on this authority to emphasize the social‑welfare purpose of section 125 and to support the grant of maintenance to the respondent who was unable to maintain herself. |
| Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal, AIR 1978 SC 1807 | Referenced as supporting the constitutional character of section 125 (within the discussion in Chaturbhuj) — that it falls within Article 15(3) and Article 39. | Used within the Chaturbhuj quotation relied upon by the court to underline the constitutional and social justice aspects of section 125. |
| Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others, 2005 (2) Supreme 503 / 2005 (1) CCSC 480 | Reiterated the social purpose of section 125 and its role in preventing destitution. | Referenced through the Chaturbhuj passage to reinforce the remedial, social‑justice purpose of section 125 applied by the court. |
| Bhagwan Datt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83 | Holds that a wife need not be absolutely destitute to claim maintenance; maintenance should enable a standard of living consistent with family status (neither luxurious nor penurious). | The court invoked this principle to hold that the respondent did not have to be absolutely destitute before being entitled to maintenance and to support that the awarded amount was appropriate. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded in a step‑by‑step analytical manner, applying factual findings to statutory and precedential law:
- Fact‑finding: The court accepted that the parties were validly married (24.04.1996) and had two daughters, that they were living separately with one daughter residing with each parent, and that both sides produced contradictory oral evidence regarding the reason for separation (respondent saying she was beaten and driven away on 16.01.2004; petitioner saying she voluntarily left).
- Statutory framework considered: The court examined the iind proviso of section 125(3) Cr.P.C., section 125(4) Cr.P.C., and the explanation to section 125(3). It reproduced the proviso that allows a magistrate to consider a wife's grounds for refusing to live with her husband even where the husband offers maintenance, and the provision excluding a wife from maintenance when she is living in adultery or, without sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband. The explanation to section 125(3) was noted: a husband's marriage to another woman or keeping a mistress is just ground for the wife's refusal to live with him.
- Application of statutory text to facts: The court found that the respondent was not living with the petitioner and had not complied with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Despite that, the court examined whether the respondent had just ground for refusing to live with the husband. The evidence on record indicated the petitioner had illicit relations with another woman; additionally, allegations about the respondent's character (the petitioner accusing her of illicit relations) were regarded as mental cruelty. The court held that the petitioner's illicit relationship and the mental cruelty allegations together constituted just grounds under the explanation to section 125(3) and the proviso to section 125(3) to refuse to live with the husband.
- Precedential analysis: The court acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on Balakram but distinguished that decision on facts. The court relied more heavily on the Supreme Court's exposition in Chaturbhuj (which itself cites constitutional underpinnings such as Article 15(3) and Article 39) to emphasize the remedial purpose of section 125, aimed at preventing destitution. The court also invoked Bhagwan Datt to explain that a wife need not be absolutely destitute to claim maintenance; she should be able to maintain a standard of living consistent with family status.
- Conclusion on entitlement and quantum: On the material before it the court was satisfied that the respondent was unable to maintain herself, that the petitioner (a government school teacher) had sufficient means, and that the maintenance amount awarded by the family court (Rs. 800 per month each to the respondent and to her minor daughter) was not excessive. The court found no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order and therefore declined to interfere.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The revision is dismissed; the impugned order of the Family Court, Jabalpur dated 21.05.2007 in M.J.C. No. 250/04 (which directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 800 per month to the respondent and Rs. 800 per month to the respondent's minor daughter) is upheld.
Direct implications:
- The respondent (wife) is held entitled to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. despite non‑compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights because the court found just grounds (petitioner keeping a mistress and mental cruelty through character allegations) for her refusal to resume cohabitation.
- The petitioner, a government school teacher, is required to continue paying the maintenance amounts ordered by the family court. The court found the quantum to be reasonable and not excessive.
Broader implications: The court applied established precedents emphasizing the remedial and social‑justice purpose of section 125 Cr.P.C. but did not purport to create any new precedent; the decision is an application of settled principles to the facts of this case.
This summary is strictly limited to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.
(1) This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the code of criminal procedure read with section 19 (4) of the family court act has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21. 05. 2007 passed by family court, jabalpur in m. J. C. No. 250/04 whereby the application filed by respondent under section 125 of cr. P. C. Has been allowed and directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent and her daughter at the rate of rs. 800/per month to each respectively.
(2) The facts of the case in brief are that respondent/applicant (herein after referred as respondent) filed an application under section 125 of cr. P. C. Against the petitioner/non - applicant (herein after referred as petitioner) to the effect that she is the wedded wife of petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 24. 04. 1996. They lived happily for two years and two daughters were born out of their wedlock but later on petitioner's behavior changed. He started harassing her. On 16. 01. 2004 he gave her beating and drived her out of the house. Since then she is residing in her parents house alongwith her minor daughter. She has no means to maintain herself. On the contrary, petitioner is a teacher and has means to support. It was also stated that the petitioner has illicit relations with suhagabai and, he has neglected her. Since the marital relations are still subsisting hence, she is entitled to get maintenance and also for her minor daughter.
(3) The petitioner submitted the written reply in detail wherein he denied most of the averments of the petition mainly contending that respondent is voluntarily living separately. He has not subjected her to cruelty and not driven out from his house. He is ready to keep with him. He has also filed the petition under section 9 of hindu marriage act for restitution of the conjugal rights wherein the decree has been passed. In spite of she did not turn up to live with him, therefore, in such circumstances, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.
(4) Both the parties adduced the evidence in support of their contention. Urmila bai (aw - 1) and pusiya bai (aw - 2) have been examined on behalf of the respondent whereas rewalal sarote (naw - 1) and ayodhya singh (naw - 2) on behalf of petitioner. After appreciating the evidence, family court allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of rs. 800/ - per month to respondent and to her minor daughter each respectively. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very out set submitted that the petitioner has no objection in granting maintenance to minor daughter ku. Anjali, but he has challenged the same granted to the respondent.
(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to keep respondent with him but she is not residing with him in spite of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the competent court. She has deserted him without any reasonable cause. In such circumstances, she is not entitled for any maintenance. He has placed the reliance on the decision of this court rendered in the case of balakram vs. Smt. Durgabai and others 2007 (1) mpwn 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no evidence that petitioner subjected cruelty to the respondent hence it was not proved that respondent was harassed or beaten by the petitioner. The court below has not given the finding as to what is effect of the decree passed in hindu marriage act case no. 42a/04 passed by 2nd additional district judge, mandla on 19. 07. 2006 (ex. D - 1). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the court below has committed an illegality in awarding the maintenance allowance to the respondent.
(7) On the contrary, ms. C. P. Golandaz, advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order mainly contending that respondent is living separately from petitioner on account of his misbehavior and mal - treatment. He has made baseless allegation regarding her character by alleging that she has illicit relations with vijay. This is the mental cruelty to her. Since the petitioner is causing harassment, giving beating, therefore, she is apprehending danger in residing with him. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed the reliance on the decision of chaturbhuj vs. Sita bai, 2008 (1) ccsc 384 (sc). Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent. The order being proper does not call for any interference.
(8) The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the court below has committed any illegality in allowing the application filed by the respondent under section 125 of cr. P. C?
(9) It is not disputed that the respondent and petitioner married on 24. 04. 1996 and two daughters were born out of their wedlock. One is residing with petitioner and another with respondent. Their life was very peaceful up to two years but subsequently the relations became tense. According to respondent, petitioner started misbehaving and causing her marpeet. On 16. 01. 2004 she was beaten and drived out of the house and since then she is residing with her parents. The evidence of urmila bai (aw - 1) and pusiya bai (aw - 2) has been given to the effect. On the contrary, the petitioner has denied such facts and has given the evidence that she has voluntarily left his house and living separately. The evidence of rewalal sarote (nw - 1) and ayodhya singh (nw - 2) has been adduced to that effect. Thus, it is evident that petitioner and respondent both are residing separately with one minor daughter each.
(10) The contention of learned counsel of the petitioner is that the petitioner has offered to live together but she has not accepted and living separately, therefore, no maintenance can be provided to her. Learned counsel has drawn my attention on the provisions contained in iind proviso of section 125 (3) and also to he provisions contained in section 125 (4) of cr. P. C. Iind proviso of section 125 (3) reads thus:provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Section 125 (4) reads as follows: no wife shall be entitled to receive an (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,) 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.
(11) In the present case it is evident that respondent is not living with her husband. She is not ready to live with him. She has also not complied with the decree (ex. D - 2) passed in matrimonial case no. 42a/04 by iind additional district judge, mandla.
(12) The contention of the learned counsel of respondent is that petitioner has mal treated her, caused her marpeet. She was driven out of her matrimonial house on 16. 01. 2004. Since then he never cared her. He has never returned to take her back. He has made the false allegation that she has illicit relations with vijay. He does not take food prepared by her. He has illicit relation with another woman suhagabai. Her life is in danger if she lives with him. These are the grounds why she does not want to live with him. Learned counsel of respondent has drawn my attention to the explanation to section 125 (3) of cr. P. C. Explanation of section 125 (3) reads thus: if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.
(13) Since it has come on record that petitioner has illicit relation with another woman, hence this ground alone is sufficient to refuse to live with him. Apart from it there is ground of cruelty also. The allegations regarding her character constitute mental cruelty to her. That may be an additional ground to refuse to live with him. Prima facie these are the just grounds to refuse respondent to live with her husband.
(14) No doubt petitioner has obtained exparte decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent and as per referred case balakram (supra) the wife not joining company of her husband in spite of such decree, she is not entitled for maintenance but the referred case is distinguishable on the facts of this case. Apart from it even the divorced wife is entitled to receive maintenance till she does not remarry. It is abundantly clear that marriage in between the parties is still subsisting hence she is entitled for maintenance.
(15) In the case of chaturbhuj (supra) the apex court has held thus:
"the object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instance case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125, cr. P. C. Is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this court in captain ramesh chander kaushal v. Mrs. Veena kaushal and others, air 1978 sc 1807 falls within constitutional sweep of article 15 (3) reinforced by article 39 of the constitution of india, 1950 (in short the "constitution"). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in savitaben somabhai bhatiya v. State of gujarat and others, 2005 (2) supreme 503: 2005 (1) ccsc 480".
(16) In the case of bhagwan datt vs. Smt. Kamla devi air 1975 sc 83, it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living, which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125, cr. P. C.
(17) From the evidence available on record it is manifestly clear that respondent is not in a position to maintain herself. On the contrary, petitioner is a teacher in govt. School and is earning salary. He has sufficient means to provide the maintenance. The awarded amount is not excessive. There is no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order hence cannot be set aside. The revision is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, this revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.
Alert