Husband Can’t Escape Liability Of Maintenance By Merely Citing Faults In Wife’s Pleadings: Madhya Pradesh High Court
While dismissing a criminal revision application filed by the petitioner-husband, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored that a destitute wife claiming maintenance cannot be victimised solely based on faults in her pleadings. The husband had challenged a Family Court order that rejected his application under Section 127 CrPC to reduce the maintenance amount.After referring to the...
While dismissing a criminal revision application filed by the petitioner-husband, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored that a destitute wife claiming maintenance cannot be victimised solely based on faults in her pleadings. The husband had challenged a Family Court order that rejected his application under Section 127 CrPC to reduce the maintenance amount.
After referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, (2015), the single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh opined that a ‘hypertechnical attitude’ cannot be adopted in maintenance cases.
“…the destitute wife who is unable to maintain herself cannot be victimised only on the basis of her fault. The hyper technical attitude cannot be adopted in such type of maintenance cases. As such the petitioner cannot escape the liability of maintenance of the child and wife on excuse that she has done some fault in her pleadings and proceedings of the case…”, the court noted in the order.
In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors, the apex court had held that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC is summary in nature and such proceedings do not require dissecting the niceties of a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife. A final finding as to who is at fault and to what extent is irrelevant in an application under Section 125 CrPC, the apex court had noted then.
In the case at hand, the application under Section 127 CrPC was previously rejected by the Family Court after citing Chaturbuj v. Sitabai, (2008). The Family Court had then observed that even if the wife earns a little bit of income after desertion, the same cannot be taken as a reason to reject her maintenance on the ground that she has a self-sufficient source to earn her livelihood.
The husband had argued that the wife was working currently as a teacher and drawing a handsome amount as salary. The petitioner-husband also argued that the wife had deliberately suppressed the details about her income in the pleadings.
In Chaturbhaj, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that ‘the phrase "unable to maintain herself… would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow…”.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh noted that during the chief examination of the wife, she had clearly stated that she had no means of income then as she had not been working back then. These statements were not rebutted in the cross-examination, the court added. On the basis of an MPhil degree alone, the respondent-wife is not disentitled to claim maintenance from her husband, the bench further remarked.
Though the petitioner contended that he has left his engineering job and hence he is not liable to pay maintenance to his wife who is employed at Bhartiya Mahavidyalaya, Ujjain, the High Court differed in its analysis by relying upon Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) where the apex court held that voluntary retirement by the husband for escaping liability to pay the maintenance cannot be condoned.
“As per the aforesaid law, it is manifestly clear that even if the petitioner has left the job, he will be liable to maintain his wife and child”, Justice Prem Narayan Singh clarified.
The court also briefly emphasised the ratio of the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash (1968) wherein it was held that ‘an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child’.
As far as the plea regarding remanding the case back to the family court, the High Court observed that such a step wouldn’t be appropriate at this stage of the proceedings, especially when both parties have been entangled in litigation since 2016, though the party has the right to approach the trial court at any ‘changing stage’ under Section 127 CrPC. Section 127 CrPC talks about alteration in allowance/maintenance or interim maintenance granted on proof of a change in the circumstances of the husband.
The current petition was filed by the husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act R/W Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C to invoke the revisional powers of the High Court in such matters.
Advocate Pankaj Soni appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Shanno Shagufta Khan appeared for the respondent.
Background
Earlier, in 2020, the Family Court had rejected the application filed by the current revision petitioner to reduce the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife and the son born out of wedlock, i.e., Rs 7000/- and Rs 3000/- respectively for each of them. After the marriage was solemnized in 2014, due to some dispute that arose between the husband and wife later on, they started living separately and the above-mentioned maintenance amount was awarded in 2018 by the Family Court pursuant to an application filed under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumrawat v. Smt Antima Kumrawat
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 825 Of 2020