[Maintenance] S.125 CrPC Doesn't Require Wife To Prove 'Sufficient Cause For Living Separately' From Husband: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) do not require proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately.“It is clear from a clean reading of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, that the proceedings are summary in nature and it is sufficient if negligence or refusal on the part of the husband...
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) do not require proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately.
“It is clear from a clean reading of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, that the proceedings are summary in nature and it is sufficient if negligence or refusal on the part of the husband in providing maintenance to the wife is demonstrated. The proceedings do not contemplate the proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately”, the Court held.
The Bench comprising of Justice C M Poonacha while adjudicating an appeal filed in Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh, has clarified that as long as the relationship between a married couple is undisputed and wife is living separately from the husband, it is sufficient to attract application of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Courts are not required to record a finding as to the sufficiency of cause for the wife to live separately from the husband while deciding maintenance applications.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Smt. Renuka (“Petitioner/Wife”) and Sri Venkatesh (“Respondent/Husband”) are married to each other. The Wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the Husband. On 14.11.2018, the Trial Court dismissed the petition while holding that no material was placed on record by the wife to demonstrate her willingness to join the Husband in the matrimonial home or to prove that the Husband wilfully neglected to maintain her.
The Wife filed an appeal before the High Court against the Trial Court’s order.
Section 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) states that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
HIGH COURT VERDICT
The Court while referring to Section 125 of Cr.P.C., observed that a person is entitled to initiate maintenance proceedings if it demonstrates the aspects of ‘neglect’ or ‘refusal to maintain’.
The Bench held that maintenance proceedings do not require proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately.
“It is clear from a clean reading of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, that the proceedings are summary in nature and it is sufficient if negligence or refusal on the part of the husband in providing maintenance to the wife is demonstrated. The proceedings do not contemplate the proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately”, the Bench noted.
Further, the matrimonial relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent is undisputed. Since the Parties had made allegations and counter allegations with regard to the reason for them to be living separately, the Court held that such reasons cannot be adjudicated in maintenance proceedings and no finding can be recorded.
“The reasons for the petitioners (wife and children) not to be living along with the respondent (husband) cannot be adjudicated, in the present proceedings and a finding to be recorded regarding the same.”
The Court also dismissed the husband’s contention that he never neglected the moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife and children. The Court noted, “It is ex-facie not liable to be accepted having regard to the fact that, admittedly the petitioners and respondent are living separately and it is not open for the respondent to put forth the contention that he is willing to maintain the petitioners, if they come and reside with him.”
It was observed that proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. being summary in nature, do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, and it merely provides a summary remedy for maintenance payable to wife, children and parents. Accordingly, the Court has set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed the Family Court to adjudicate the claim of the parties on merits, to determine the quantum of maintenance payable.
Case Title: Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh
Case No: RPFC No. 100033/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. V G Bhat (Adv.)
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: 100033/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Date of Order: 31-07-2023
Appearance: Advocate V G Bhat for Petitioners