Court: High Court Of Uttarakhand
Bench: JUSTICE Umesh Chandra Dhyani
Kavita Vs. State of Uttarakhand On 30.10.2013
Section 125(4)–Maintenance of wife–Denied–Legality–Held–As wife is living separately without any ground is not entitle to maintenance–No interference–Petition is dismissed.
1. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance was filed on behalf of Smt. Kavita and her minor son Master Nikunj against Vijay Kumar Dhiman, husband of Kavita and father of Master Nikunj. Vijay Kumar Dhiman contested the application and filed written statement. P.W. 1 Smt. Kavita and PW2 Mithilesh Kumar were examined on behalf of the wife. D.W. 1 Vijay Kumar Dhiman and D.W. 2 Raj Kumar were examined on behalf of husband. Documents were also filed by the rival parties. After considering the pleas and the evidence thus brought on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. it was held by the court below, vide order dated 22.05.2008, that the wife refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. The application filed on her behalf was, therefore, dismissed. The father was, however, directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- to his son (applicant No. 2) on the 10th day of every calendar month. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred by Smt. Kavita.
2. The main plank of dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of Smt. Kavita by the court below was that she refused to live with her husband Vijay Kumar Dhiman without any sufficient reason.
3. It appears on the basis of evidence brought on record that the applicant-wife was unable to maintain herself and her husband is having sufficient means. But the vital question is – whether the husband neglected or refused to maintain his wife? The reply to the aforesaid question becomes inconsequential if this fact is brought on record that the wife refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. It will be useful to reproduce Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for ready reference. The same reads as under:
“(4) 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 refused to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”
4. The couple was married to each other on 12.11.2005. They knew each other before solemnizing of marriage. The father of Smt. Kavita was initially reluctant for this marriage, but on the persuasion of Smt. Kavita, her father agreed. PW2 also corroborated the said fact. There was, therefore, no question of demand of dowry in the said marriage. Kavita completed her studies upto class X.
5. The following statement proved to be the death-knell of her case:
“I am not ready to go with the opposite party even if opposite party (my husband) gives a written undertaking in the court that my comforts and security will be taken care of and even if he is ready to take me alongwith him.”
The reason for giving such statement was that the husband assaulted the wife, did not provide her even with a glass of water and did not permit her to go out of the house.
6. The reason attributed by the wife (Kavita) fell on the ground in view of the fact that she was taken by her husband to Dehradun and Mussoorie. She was also taken to Kamal, Kurukshetra and Ludhiana by her husband. The photographs endorsing this fact were filed on record. When the wife conceived, she was taken to Yamuna Nagar by her husband for treatment. When Kavita came to her parental home and her husband went there to take her back to her matrimonial home, the husband was assaulted by the father of Kavita. PW2 Mithilesh Kumar (father) admitted the said fact that when Vijay Kumar Dhiman came to take Kavita alongwith him, he assaulted Vijay Kumar Dhiman.
7. Although several allegations were levelled by the wife against her husband but the same were not substantiated before the court below. It was admitted by the wife in the course of her tendering evidence that her husband loved her and still loves her. The husband was ready to give the undertaking before the lower court in spite of the fact that he was sent to jail at the instance of his wife. Vijay Kumar Dhiman (husband) also instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Jagadhri, Haryana against his wife.
8. Even if it was proved that the husband was having sufficient means and his wife was unable to maintain herself, the fact remains that the wife is not entitled to maintenance allowance if she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, as is provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The case of the present revisionist is exactly the same.
9. Learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, therefore, committed no mistake in coming to the conclusion that she (wife) was not entitled to maintenance allowance from her husband. Cogent reasons were assigned by the court below in coming to such a conclusion. This Court also independently assessed the evidence brought on record to come to a conclusion that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the wife was dismissed by the court below, for no unjust reason. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
10. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. Criminal revision thus fails and the same is dismissed.
11. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith lower court record be sent to the court concerned.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
If you have any query related to gender biased laws join SahodarWhatsapp Groups by sending Whatsapp message “Subscribe” to Sahodar Trust No. 9811850498