Wife Not Entitled To Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC In Case Of Unreasonable Departure From Matrimonial Home: Jharkhand HC

This Criminal Revision had been filed against the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to the opposite party from the date of application.

The wife alleged cruelty and neglect by her husband, along with an illicit relationship with another woman, leading her to leave the matrimonial home. The husband countered, alleging abandonment by the wife without reasonable cause, and also accused her of terminating a pregnancy without his consent.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Chand held, “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.”

Advocate Indrajit Sinha appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Anil Kumar Sinha appeared for the Respondent.

The Court found in favor of the husband, ruling that the wife had left him without reasonable cause, thereby disqualifying her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. The Court noted, “From the very prescription of Dr. Indu Chouhan, which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-husband, it is found that it is dated 21.02.2015, in which, Sangeeta Kachhap, wife of Amit Kumar Kachhap, 27 years old resident of Baradih is shown patient and she is also shown pregnant of two and half months. The doctor has also prescribed her certain tablets on account of her general bodyache. This prescription issued by Dr. Indu Chouhan, in which, the pregnancy is also shown ‘positive’ belies the statement of applicant Sangeeta Toppo, who has flatly refused that she never became pregnant. She never underwent treatment of Dr. Indu Chouhan and pregnancy was never terminated.”

Since the wife was deemed ineligible for maintenance, the Court did not delve into the question of whether the quantum of maintenance was disproportionate.

Consequently, the Court allowed the Criminal Revision, setting aside the previous order for maintenance.

Cause Title: Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Vipul Poddar

Respondent: Advocate Anil Kumar Sinha

Click here to read/download Judgment