[S.125 CrPC] Maintenance Provisions Being Welfare Legislation Need Not Be Construed To Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the provisions for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC are welfare legislations and that they need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt as their criminal law counterparts. In refusing to quash a claim for maintenance against the petitioner, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:Conduct of wife/opposite party during her stay...
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the provisions for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC are welfare legislations and that they need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt as their criminal law counterparts.
In refusing to quash a claim for maintenance against the petitioner, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
Conduct of wife/opposite party during her stay at her matrimonial house may not be the sole parameter to be considered before granting maintenance under 125 Cr.P.C. Said provision being a welfare legislation is not supposed to be construed what is likely to be construed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt under section 498A I.P.C. or Under Section 406 of the IPC. I find that this is not a fit case where invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure the present proceeding, can be quashed on the basis of the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner wherein criminal proceeding under section 498A/406/34 was quashed.
The petitioner had approached the Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing all proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, and relied on a judgement of a coordinate bench which discharged him from offences under IPC 498A, 406 and 34.
It was argued that the petitioner and the opposite party were married in 2016, and she had only stayed for a total of 7 days in her matrimonial home, after which he filed for a declaration of nullity of the marriage.
It was submitted that, as a counterblast, the wife began harassing him and his family members and filed a case under aforesaid sections of the IPC against them, as well as for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
It was argued that the allegations in both the criminal cases as well as the maintenance case were similar and that the criminal cases had been quashed by the Court upon observing that the allegations made were vague and without any specific detail, which did not prove that the petitioner had committed any of the alleged offences.
Petitioner submitted that the aforesaid judgement had established that the wife had made false allegations even in her plea for maintenance and that she had made false allegations in her sworn affidavit, without exposing her education, working capacity or living standard.
Accordingly, it was submitted that the application for maintenance was not maintainable and liable to be quashed.
Counsel for the wife/opposite party submitted that the petitioner had not filed his affidavit of assets and liabilities in the maintenance case and that the petitioner in his application for quashing had not mentioned the grounds for seeking such direction
It was also submitted that merely because the wife was well educated and came from a well-to-do family could not be a ground to observe that she would be able to maintain herself.
It was argued that the wife's entitlement to maintenance could only be decided after trial since she had raised triable issues, and hence the application for maintenance by the unemployed lady could not be quashed at this stage.
Upon hearing the parties, the Court observed that the major grounds raised by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings were that th 498A case against him had been quashed and that the wife was capable of maintaining herself.
Court noted that the objective of Section 498A IPC, which was a criminal statute to address cases of dowry death caused by cruelty by in-laws and spouses, was entirely different from the purpose of Section 125 CrPC, which was a welfare-oriented legislation.
It noted that a spouse may be entitled to maintenance if they suffer refusal or neglect, and held:
Refusal or neglect can be express or implied and it can be by words or by conduct. There can be different shades of neglect or refusal and without trial it is hardly possible to conclude as to whether there was any refusal or neglect or not at this budding stage of the proceeding.
Accordingly, it concluded that whether or not the wife was entitled to maintenance could only be determined at trial and that the wife's family's financial status or her educational qualifications would not have any bearing on allowing the suit for maintenance to be continued.
Thus, the plea was dismissed.
Case: Paresh Chandra Ganguly (represented by LRs) v CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 32