- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Amrita Singh (S) v. Ratan Singh And Another (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Amrita Singh, married Respondent No. 1, Ratan Singh, on 17 February 2006. A son was born in May 2007. Alleging cruelty and dowry demands, the appellant left the matrimonial home with her child on 4 January 2008 and returned to her parental residence. Because no maintenance was forthcoming, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child.
The trial court found that Respondent No. 1, a railway employee earning approximately Rs. 16,000 per month, should pay Rs. 4,000 per month each to the appellant and the child. Respondent No. 1 challenged that order by way of a criminal revision before the Patna High Court. The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the maintenance order, concluding that the appellant had not shown “reasonable cause” for living separately. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India via a Special Leave Petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant had “reasonable cause” to refuse to live with Respondent No. 1, thereby entitling her to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Whether the Patna High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s maintenance order despite evidence of cruelty and a conviction under Section 498-A IPC against Respondent No. 1 and his family members.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- She was subjected to cruelty and persistent dowry demands by Respondent No. 1 and his relatives.
- She was forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home and therefore had reasonable grounds to live separately.
- A criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC resulted in the conviction of Respondent No. 1 and his father, corroborating her allegations.
- The Family Court, while dismissing Respondent No. 1’s divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, held that the husband was at fault for cruelty, further validating her stance.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The appellant deserted him without reasonable cause, and he remained willing to resume cohabitation.
- Given the alleged desertion, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s dismissal of maintenance relied only on two facts: (1) Respondent No. 1 had earlier filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and (2) the appellant had lodged a Section 498-A IPC case. The Court found the High Court’s analysis “cryptic” and contrary to the existing judicial findings.
Key points in the Court’s reasoning:
The Family Court, while dismissing Respondent No. 1’s divorce petition, specifically held that the husband had treated the appellant with cruelty and that she had been ousted from the matrimonial home. Respondent No. 1 and his family members were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger. Although their appeal was pending, the conviction presently stands, substantiating the appellant’s claims of cruelty and dowry demands. Given the above findings, the appellant’s apprehension of further cruelty if she returned was held to be reasonable. Therefore, the statutory condition under Section 125 CrPC that a wife must show “just and sufficient cause” for living separately was satisfied. The undisputed salary of approximately Rs. 16,000 per month provided a factual basis for the trial court’s award of Rs. 8,000 total monthly maintenance.
On these grounds, the Court concluded that the High Court’s order could not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed; the Patna High Court’s order is set aside, and the trial court’s maintenance award of Rs. 4,000 per month each to the appellant and the minor child is restored.
Implications: The decision reinstates maintenance for the appellant and her child and underscores that findings of cruelty or dowry-related offences can constitute “reasonable cause” for separate residence under Section 125 CrPC. No new legal precedent was established, but the ruling reaffirms the evidentiary value of concurrent civil and criminal findings in maintenance proceedings.
A.K Sikri, J.:— Leave granted.
2. Marriage between appellant and Respondent no. 1 was solemnized on February 17.2006 In May 2007, one son was born out of this wedlock. It is the case of the appellant that on account of cruel conduct of Respondent no. 1 towards her, she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home along with her child on January 04, 2008 and since she was living at her parental home and no maintenance amount was paid to her by her husband, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child.
3. Both the parties led their evidence, the trial court found that Respondent no. 1 is a railway employee and is getting a salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month from the railway department. That fact is not in dispute. Keeping in view the aforesaid income of Respondent no. 1, the trial court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- for the appellant and Rs. 4,000/- for the child.
4. Respondent no. 1 challenged the aforesaid order by filling criminal revision petition in the High Court and the High Court has allowed the said petition thereby quashing the order of the trial court granting maintenance. The reason given by the High Court is that the appellant has not made out any reasonable cause for not living with Respondent no. 1. Entire discussion on this aspect is contained in two paragraphs which are reproduced below:
“5. The history of their marriage is that the petitioner submits that he was kidnapped for the purpose of marriage on a misconception that he was highly placed in the railway even though he belongs to parents, who come within the BPL category, and he himself was the 4 grade employee. Naturally, there was incompatibility between the spouses on account of wide economic difference between them. When the Opposite Party No. 2 left him, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Some kind of temporary arrangement was made at the behest of the Court but to no avail. In the meanwhile, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code in which he and his father were behind the bar for a long period.
6. It appears that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not made out any reasonable cause for not living with the petition. In such circumstances, evidently the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C should not have been allowed by the Court below.”
5. Two aspects are mentioned in the afore-quoted portion, i.e, application of Respondent no. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and filing of case by the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no discussion as to how the aforesaid two cases led to the conclusion that appellant did not have any reasonable cause for leaving Respondent no. 1. That apart, in any case it is abundantly clear from the record that the position that emerges from the aforesaid proceedings would blame Respondent no. 1 and not the appellant and the finding of the High Court is palpably erroneous.
6. It would be pertinent to note that Respondent no. 1 had, after filing the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed another petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage alleging that the appellant had deserted her without any reasonable cause and also that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty. In defence, the appellant had pleaded that it is she who was treated with cruelty and there was demand of dowry as well.
7. It may be mentioned that in reply filed by Respondent no. 1, he had taken the plea that his wife-appellant had deserted him without any reasonable cause and he was ready to take her back even now. The rebuttal of the appellant was that she was treated with cruelty by her in-laws and there was persistent demand of dowry and she was ousted from the matrimonial home after torturing. She had even filed criminal complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in January, 2008 in which Respondent no. 1 and his father have been found guilty and convicted for the said offence. Their appeal against the judgment of the trial court was pending before the Appellate Court. It is for this reason she had lost trust in her husband as she feared that she would be tortured again if she goes back to her matrimonial house. In essence, she pleaded that there were valid reasons for not resuming the matrimonial alliance after she was thrown out of the house. The Family Court while dismissing the petition of Respondent no. 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, gave a categorical finding that it is Respondent no. 1 - husband who had treated the appellant with cruelty and she was ousted from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant had reasonable apprehension in not joining back the company of her husband.
8. Insofar as case under Section 498-A, IPC is concerned, as already pointed out above, Respondent-1 and his family members have been convicted by Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger vide judgment dated July 09, 2013. No doubt, Respondent no. 1 and his family members have filed appeal there against, which is pending before the appellate court. Fact remains that as per the finding of the trial court, the allegations of appellant that there was a demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband, stands proved, as of now.
9. In view of the aforesaid material on record, the impugned order of the High Court does not stand judicial scrutiny which is not only cryptic but, in the teeth of the judicial findings, against Respondent no. 1.
10. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed thereby setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the maintenance granted by the trial court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3902/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/02/2015 in CRLR No. 273/2012 passed by the High Court of Patna)
Amrita Singh.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Ratan Singh and Anr.….Respondent(s)
(With interim relief and office report)
Date: 18/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rashmi Nanda Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
11. Leave granted.
12. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Alert