Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo, has held that when 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 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo Case?

• In this case, the maintenance application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed on behalf of the wife against her husband with these allegations that she was married with Amit Kumar Kachhap in the year 2014 according to their custom, rites, ritual and usages as both the parties are belonging to 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 stated that her husband neglected her over trivial matters, often abusing her under the influence of alcohol.
• The learned Trial Court after hearing the submissions of both parties, allowed the maintenance application and directed the petitioner (husband) to pay maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party-wife.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision has been preferred before the Jharkhand High Court against the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.
• The High Court allowed the criminal revision while setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

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

What is Section 125 of CrPC?

About:

• This section deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. It states that -

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation. - If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favor an order has been made under this section in living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Case Law:

• In K. Vimal v. K. Veeraswamy (1991), the Supreme Court where it was held that Section 125 of the CrPC had been introduced for achieving a social purpose. The aim of this section is the welfare of the wife by providing her with the required shelter and food after the separation from the husband.