Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the wife (original applicant) against the judgment and order dated 27-09-2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition E-No.98/2021. The Family Court had dismissed the wife's petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The wife, Sujata Manwar, married to Nishant Manwar, claimed that she was residing separately due to the husband's neglect and failure to maintain her. She had also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and was receiving interim maintenance therein. The Family Court held that the wife had suppressed the fact of filing DV proceedings and receiving interim maintenance, and that she failed to prove that the husband neglected or deserted her. The wife challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court observed that the Family Court did not consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It noted that the wife's qualification of LLB does not automatically mean she has an independent income, and the husband led no evidence to show her income. The court also held that suppression of DV proceedings is not a ground to deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as both remedies are independent. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration, directing the Family Court to decide the petition afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The revision application was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Suppression of Facts - The Family Court dismissed the wife's petition for maintenance on the ground that she suppressed the fact of filing DV proceedings and receiving interim maintenance. The High Court held that mere suppression of DV proceedings does not disentitle the wife to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as the two remedies are independent. The court must consider the evidence on record and not dismiss the petition solely on suppression. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Burden of Proof - The husband alleged that the wife had an independent income as an LLB graduate, but led no evidence to prove the same. The High Court held that the burden lies on the husband to show that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. The Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without considering this aspect. (Paras 4-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Desertion - The Family Court held that the wife failed to prove desertion by the husband. The High Court noted that the wife's evidence regarding her separate residence and the husband's failure to maintain her was not properly appreciated. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC on grounds of suppression of DV proceedings and failure to prove neglect by husband.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27-09-2024, and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The Family Court is directed to decide the petition afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Suppression of material facts
- Burden of proof on husband to show wife's income
- Wife's right to maintenance despite filing DV proceedings
