JAMMU: <\/em>The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh<\/strong> at Jammu, in a judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Parihar<\/strong>, dealt with a long-running matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife who had been living separately for many years<\/strong>. The case arose from petitions challenging orders passed in maintenance proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple married in 1990 and had a son. Later disputes arose, and the wife initiated criminal and maintenance proceedings against the husband. In 1995, both parties reached a compromise where the wife accepted \u20b910,000 as full and final settlement<\/strong> and withdrew the earlier proceedings. After this settlement, the parties started living separately. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Years later, the wife again approached the court seeking maintenance<\/a>. The trial court granted maintenance, but the revisional court set aside that order, holding that the parties had been living separately by mutual consent<\/strong>. The matter then reached the High Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the entire record and clarified the legal position regarding divorce and maintenance. The Court observed that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUnder the J&K Hindu Marriage Act 1980, marriage between Hindus can only be dissolved by a decree of divorce in accordance with statutory provisions, unless a specific custom is pleaded and strictly proved.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court explained that the issue of maintenance is different from the question of divorce. It stated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSection 488(5) Cr.P.C. independently disentitles a wife from maintenance if she is living separately by mutual consent.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the wife\u2019s conduct, the Court noted that she had withdrawn earlier proceedings after accepting settlement money, described herself as divorced in later proceedings, and lived separately for many years without asserting marital rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on these facts, the Court concluded that the parties had been living separately by mutual consent and that the wife had failed to prove neglect or refusal by the husband<\/strong>. As a result, the High Court upheld the revisional court\u2019s decision that she was not entitled to maintenance<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, considering the wife\u2019s financial circumstances and the long separation, the Court directed payment of a lump sum amount of \u20b92.50 lakhs as a one-time settlement to avoid hardship. The Court ordered: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court directed: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe said amount shall be paid by the respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petitions while directing payment of the one-time settlement amount to resolve the dispute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n