Wife living separately from husband without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: Allahabad HC
Allowing a revision petition filed by the woman's husband, Vipul Agrawal, Justice Subhas Chandra Sharma set aside the February 17 order of maintenance passed by the additional principal judge of the family court in Meerut.
'The trial court has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the husband with sufficient reasons and the husband is neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife at ₹5,000 per month.'
"As per the provision contained under section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance," the High Court said.
During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that the wife is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons. Despite this, the family court has fixed the amount of maintenance at ₹5,000 per month.
He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the earning capacity of the petitioner but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and a minor child at ₹5,000 and ₹3,000, totalling ₹8,000 per month.
However, the lawyer representing the woman and the State counsel submitted that she is living separately from her husband due to his neglect and that is why the trial court has allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance.
Allowing the revision petition of the husband, the court said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount at ₹5,000 per month in favour of the wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision as contained in section 125(4), CrPC. Therefore, the order dated February 17, 2025 being erroneous requires interference by this court." The court, in its judgment dated July 8, sent the matter back to the family court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
However, the court made it clear that the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of ₹3,000 per month for the wife and ₹2,000 per month for the child as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Gang rape by group constitutes joint liability: Chhattisgarh HC upholds conviction of nine accused
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of nine individuals in a 2020 gang rape case involving two minor victims from the Scheduled Caste community. The court dismissed appeals, affirming the Special Court's decision, emphasizing that each member of a group involved in such a crime is equally liable. RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and sentences of nine accused in a gang rape case from Balodabazar-Bhatapara district. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed four criminal appeals filed by the accused, affirming the decision of the Special Judge (Atrocities) Balodabazar. The court observed, "Where a victim is raped by one or more persons forming a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each member of such group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape, in accordance with the principles of joint liability and common intention as defined under the applicable laws." The case, registered as Special Case (Atrocities), involves the gang rape of two minor victims in May 2020. The High Court noted that the appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Notice regarding the appeals had been served to the victims' father, who was listed as PW-3 in the case. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of 30 May 2020. The victims received a call from one of the accused, who along with another accused, forced them onto a motorcycle and took them to a house in village Amera. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 새로 나온 "실손보험" 최적가 가입인기! "주요 보험사별 맞춤설계+비교견적"... 굿리치 [등록번호:제2006038313호)굿리치 보험대리점 (등록번호:제2006038313호] 가격 받기 Undo They were later taken to a cremation ground in Amera. While returning, their motorcycle was intercepted near Kesla gate by six other accused, along with two juvenile delinquents. The accused forcibly pulled the victims off the motorcycle and gang-raped them. One of the accused recorded a video of the act on his mobile phone. The accused threatened the victims with death and viral dissemination of the video if they reported the incident. Due to fear, the victims initially kept the incident hidden. Later, an accused obtained the video and began harassing the victims and their father, demanding sexual favours and threatening to circulate the video. On 28 July 2020, this accused issued an ultimatum to the victims, prompting them to finally disclose the incident to their parents. The Court confirmed that both victims were below 18 years of age and belonged to the Scheduled Caste community at the time of the incident, as stated in their depositions. The Court observed that the victims concealed the incident for two months due to death threats, which deeply impacted them. The judgment cited established legal principles regarding the testimony of sexual assault victims, emphasising that their evidence is entitled to great weight and does not always require corroboration, particularly in a society where victims are often reluctant to report such crimes. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments, including Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, and Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, the High Court reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, can form the sole basis of conviction. It also highlighted the stringent approach required in cases under the POCSO Act, as emphasised in Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand and State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, stressing that no leniency should be shown to offenders. The Court noted that the victims' consistent statements, corroborated by electronic evidence and prosecution witnesses, proved the commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault by gang rape. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's findings. Three of the appellants, who were on bail, had their bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged. They were directed to surrender to the trial court immediately to serve their sentences. Failure to do so would result in their arrest and incarceration. The remaining appellants are in jail and will serve out their sentences.
New Indian Express
10 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Andhra HC grants divorce to couple after 27 years of separation
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted divorce to a couple who had been living separately for over 27 years, stating that enforcing the mandatory six-month cooling-off period would only prolong their suffering. A division bench of Justice Ravinath Tilahari and Justice Mandava Kiranmayi delivered the verdict, allowing divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court converted the original petition, filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) citing cruelty, into a mutual consent plea, noting that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The case dates back to 2000, when Ramesh from Hyderabad filed for divorce in the Vijayawada Family Court, alleging mental cruelty by his wife Anitha. She, in turn, accused him of an extramarital affair but expressed willingness to continue the marriage. Married in 1996, the couple separated in 1997. After the family court dismissed the petition, Ramesh appealed to the High Court in 2007. During the appeal, both parties submitted a joint memo to dissolve the marriage amicably. The High Court granted divorce, waiving the cooling-off period.
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Court grants Sanjay Bhandari time to challenge fugitive tag, ED plea adjourned
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday granted arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari time to explore legal remedies against the July 5 order that declared him a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. Special Judge Sanjay Jindal of the Rouse Avenue Court allowed Bhandari's counsel time until August 2 to file an appeal before the High Court. The court also deferred proceedings on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) plea seeking confiscation of Bhandari's properties, including assets in India, Dubai, and the UK. During the hearing, Bhandari's counsel requested an adjournment, stating that the FEO Act provides a statutory 30-day window to file an appeal. 'Let me exhaust my statutory remedy,' the counsel submitted, adding that the properties listed for confiscation had already been attached by the agency. Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED along with Special Public Prosecutor Naveen Kumar Matta and Mohd Faizan, opposed the adjournment, arguing that the pendency of an appeal could not stall confiscation proceedings. He also contended that Bhandari's counsel could not represent other noticees, who had been given a chance to respond independently. Hossain detailed the properties the ED seeks to confiscate, including real estate in Vasant Vihar, Panchsheel Shopping Complex, and Shahpur Jat, as well as alleged benami properties in Noida and Gurugram. The list also includes jewellery, cash, bank accounts in the names of Bhandari and his wife, and foreign assets. Bhandari was declared a fugitive economic offender on July 5 by Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal in connection with a money laundering case linked to undisclosed foreign holdings. The ED claimed he had evaded Indian authorities and held assets exceeding `100 crore. Bhandari's counsel, senior advocate Maninder Singh, argued that his client's presence in the UK was legal and protected by a London High Court ruling. The matter will be heard after the statutory appeal period ends.
