Case Note & Summary
The case involves a revision petition filed by Smt. Chandrakala (divorcee) and her minor daughter Indira against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Family Court in Petition No. E155/03 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The applicants sought maintenance from the respondent, Bhaskar s/o Harichandra Kuhikar, who is the husband and father. The Family Court rejected the application for maintenance for both applicants. The wife had previously been granted maintenance of Rs.300 per month in a civil suit under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. She filed the Section 125 CrPC proceedings claiming Rs.1500 per month for herself and her daughter, who was 13 years old at the time of filing on 27.4.2003. The husband worked in Ordnance Factory, Ambazari. Before the Family Court, the wife examined herself and her brother Raju, and the husband examined himself. The Family Court erroneously recorded that the husband did not appear or adduce evidence, though he did. The wife's evidence that she had no means to maintain herself and her daughter was not shaken. The husband's defence of adultery was not proved. For the daughter, the Family Court refused maintenance on the ground that no birth certificate from Nagpur Municipal Corporation was produced, despite evidence of cohabitation and birth. The High Court found the Family Court's order confusing and lacking reasons. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh decision in accordance with law, directing the Family Court to decide the application within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Rejection of Maintenance - Family Court rejected maintenance without giving reasons for wife and on erroneous ground for daughter - Held that the order is unsustainable and set aside (Paras 1-4). B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Adultery Allegation - Husband alleged wife living in adultery but adduced no evidence - Family Court recorded negative finding - Held that burden on husband to prove adultery not discharged (Para 3). C) Family Law - Paternity - Birth Certificate - Daughter's maintenance refused for want of birth certificate despite evidence of cohabitation and birth - Held that Family Court erred as evidence of paternity was sufficient (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for the wife and daughter without proper reasons and despite evidence of need and paternity.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 6.7.2005, and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Family Court was directed to decide the application within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Burden of proof on husband alleging adultery
- Duty of Family Court to give reasons
- Maintenance for minor daughter
