Patna High Court Dismisses Husband's Plea Against Maintenance To Wife, Says Refusal To Live With Him Not Without Cause
The Patna High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband against an order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to his wife and minor son. The petitioner had argued that grant of maintenance to the wife is barred under section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as she refused...
The Patna High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband against an order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to his wife and minor son. The petitioner had argued that grant of maintenance to the wife is barred under section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as she refused to live with him without any reasonable cause.
While rejecting the contention, Justice Dr. Anshuman observed, “Upon going through the findings recorded by the trial court on the basis of the materials available on record, it transpires to me that ingredient of section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. is not available to the petitioner as not living with the husband is not without cause.”
The court took note of the wife's categoric submission before the lower court that "if her husband shall keep her with due respect and he changed his behaviour then only she will reside otherwise not." It has also come that husband used to make complain with regard to the family of wife which is not acceptable to her, it noted further.
The husband-petitioner had alleged that his wife had tortured and humiliated him, and he had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights against her. The Family Court had allowed his application and passed a decree in his favour. However, the wife did not appear in the case and the petitioner filed an execution case, but she did not participate in that as well.
The husband further contended that his wife had filed complaints against him and his family under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. He claimed that he was willing to pay maintenance for his son, but not to his wife, as she had refused to live with him without any valid reason.
However, the wife submitted that the husband had demanded dowry and had refused to keep her due to non-fulfillment of the demand. She alleged that she was forced to live at her parental home due to her husband's behaviour and his complaints against her family.
Case Title: AM @ AK vs. PD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 32