S.125(4) CrPC | Wife Residing Away From Husband Without Any Reasonable Cause Not Entitled To Maintenance: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has stated that if a wife chooses to live separately from her husband without any valid reason, she is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Justice Subhash Chand emphasized, “In view of the overall evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is found that the respondent-applicant has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, this point of determination is decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party-wife. In consequence thereof, in view of Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance.”

The above ruling came in a Criminal Revision preferred against the impugned judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in a Maintenance Case filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the Court below had allowed the maintenance application and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party from the date of application i.e. 30.10.2017

The case in question revolves around a maintenance application filed by Sangeeta Toppo, the wife, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband, Amit Kumar Kachhap. Sangeeta alleged that they were married in 2014 according to their customs as both belong to the Sarna community.

Upon marriage, the wife was taken to her husband's family home where demands for dowry, including a car, fridge, and LED TV, allegedly began immediately. She claimed that her husband and his family pressured her to fulfill these demands. Additionally, she stated that her husband neglected her over trivial matters, often abusing her under the influence of alcohol.

Furthermore, the wife accused the husband of having an extramarital affair with a woman, initially introduced as his sister's friend. Discovering the affair, the wife asserted that her husband's actions deprived her of love, care, protection, and maintenance, leaving her in distress.

The wife further stated that she is an unemployed tribal woman, and highlighted her husband's substantial income as an Indian Railway Loco Pilot earning Rs. 60,000 per month, his income from a marriage hall business in Baradih amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 per month, and rental earnings of Rs. 60,000 per month from 12 shops. Consequently, she sought maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month.

The petitioner-husband argued that both he and the applicant-wife belong to the scheduled tribe, specifically the Oraon community, rendering the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 inapplicable. He asserted that their marriage is governed by the customs and usages of their community.

He stated that following their marriage, the applicant initially resided at their matrimonial house in Jamshedpur for a week. However, at the request of her maternal uncle and aunt, she returned to Ranchi to stay with them, acting as her guardians. Despite assurances that she would return within 15 days, she did not come back to the matrimonial home, despite repeated requests from the husband.

He further stated that the wife, a post-graduate, had conceived during her marriage but underwent an abortion without the husband's consent while staying with her maternal relatives. The husband contends that her departure from their marital home lacked reasonable cause, prompting him to wait for over two years before divorcing her in 2017, leaving her free to marry as she chooses.

In light of these circumstances, the petitioner-husband opposed the maintenance application, arguing that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance given her actions and choices, and therefore, prayed the dismissal of the maintenance application.

For the disposal of this Criminal Revision, following points of determination were framed by the Court

“(i) Whether the opposite party-wife has left the society of her husband without any reasonable cause, if so its effect?

(ii) Whether the quantum of maintenance is disproportionate in view of the income and assets of the petitioner-husband?”

The Court took note of the wife's testimony during cross-examination, where she revealed residing in the matrimonial home for only one month. Importantly, during this period, she did not report any instances of dowry-related abuse nor sought any intervention such as a panchayat.

The Court noted that her decision to distance herself from her husband stemmed from allegations of his extramarital affair and his filing of legal cases against her, including one for theft, where she secured anticipatory bail.

Additionally, the Court noted that there were no instances of pregnancy or abortion during their union, and she left her jewelry behind in the matrimonial home.

Based on these observations, the Court concluded that the wife's separation from her husband lacked reasonable justification. Consequently, under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she was deemed ineligible for maintenance.

Regarding the second point, since the wife was deemed ineligible for maintenance, the Court deemed it unnecessary to assess the proportionality of the maintenance amount in relation to the husband's income and assets.

In view of the above, the Court allowed the Criminal Revision while setting aside the order passed by the Court below.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Case No.: Criminal Revision No.512 of 2023

Case Title: Amit Kumar Kachhap vs Sangeeta Toppo

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

Click Here To Read / Download Judgment