Title: “Smt. vs. ” (Case No. Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2023)
Date of Decision: 13th October 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Introduction
The case revolves around a petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order issued by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The order, dated 11th January 2023, pertains to an application for interim maintenance filed by the petitioner in the context of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner sought the grant of interim maintenance following allegations of harassment and desertion by her husband.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. (name redacted), filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She claimed that she had married the respondent on 29th October 2019, but shortly thereafter, he began harassing her.
The petitioner accused her husband of defamation and making false allegations of adultery against her, which ultimately led to her eviction from the matrimonial home on 18th October 2020. The respondent allegedly did not provide any financial support.
According to the petitioner, the respondent, working as a Patwari, had no other financial obligations but refused to maintain her. She filed an application under the second proviso to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month.
In response, the respondent contested the petitioner’s claims. He argued that the petitioner was well-qualified and had sufficient means to support herself. He further alleged that she had deserted him and was engaged in adulterous conduct.
The petitioner, in her rejoinder, denied the respondent’s allegations and pointed out incidents of domestic violence. She noted that she had filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was pending adjudication.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim maintenance on the grounds that she was living in adultery, was well-qualified, and thus capable of maintaining herself.
The judgment reviewed the definition of adultery under Section 497 IPC, which requires sexual intercourse with someone known or believed to be another person’s spouse without their consent. The Court concluded that the mere existence of WhatsApp chats was insufficient to establish adultery.
The judgment emphasized that no material evidence had been presented to demonstrate the petitioner’s independent source of income or livelihood, notwithstanding her qualifications. It further reiterated that laws like Section 125 of Cr.P.C. exist to prevent destitution of wives and family members when they lack the means for self-maintenance. The case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for a fresh decision, allowing both parties the opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
In summary, the judgment highlights the need for proper evidence and due process in determining maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C., underscoring the welfare-oriented nature of such laws. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. exist to prevent destitution of wives and family members when they lack the means for self-maintenance: Himachal Pradesh HC dismisses petition
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Tarishi Verma
