With 40% Disability He Cannot Be Said To Be Bedridden: Madhya Pradesh HC Holds Husband Liable To Pay Maintenance To Wife
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the husband in a matrimonial dispute as liable to pay maintenance to the wife by holding that with 40% disability, the husband cannot be said to be bedridden.
The Jabalpur Bench was dealing with an application preferred by a man under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “Thus, it is clear from the disability certificate that the applicant has suffered temporary disability of 40% in relation to his both the legs. Although the certificate has been made valid upto 21.09.2026 but what is the meaning of temporary disability could have been explained by the Doctor himself but even if it is assumed that applicant is still suffering from 40% disability, then it cannot be said that he is bed ridden, therefore, the submission made by counsel for applicant that applicant is a bed ridden cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, in the affidavit in support of his stay application as well as in the memo of Revision, it has not been pleaded by the applicant that he is bed ridden.”
Advocate Lalji Kushwaha appeared on behalf of the applicant/husband.
Facts of the Case -
The appellant and respondent were husband and wife respectively. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and thereafter, the evidence of parties and their witnesses was recorded. The Gram Nyalaya allowed the wife’s application and awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, both parties preferred separate Revisions. The Revision filed by the husband was dismissed by the Revisional Court and that of the wife was allowed.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had met with an accident and because of electrocution, he fell down on floor as a result of which he sustained injuries on his hips and was completely bedridden. It was further submitted that because of his injuries, he is unable to do any job and hence, completely dependent on his father. However, the Revisional Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case said, “Alongwith an affidavit, it appears that the photocopies of certain medical prescriptions were filed but it appears that applicant did not file any application for examination of Doctor to prove the medical documents and accordingly, the case was finally heard.”
The Court noted that before the Revisional Court, the applicant had filed a disability certificate, according to which he has suffered 40% locomotor disability.
“In the light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), this Court has already considered the physical ability/disability of the applicant”, it added.
The Court further emphasised that once the applicant/husband has failed to prove that he is bedridden coupled with the fact that disability certificate relied upon by him is a temporary certificate and he did not prove the same before the Trial Court, in absence of the medical report that he is confined to bed, he cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife.
“Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that both the Courts below did not commit any mistake by holding that the applicant is competent enough to earn”, it said.
The Court concluded that an amount of Rs. 5000/- cannot be held to be on the higher side, in view of the price of goods of daily needs, price index, etc.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title- Mahendra Singh v. Kavita Singh