Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Charandas s/o Mulchand Chandanbawane, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Bhandara in Criminal Revision Application No. 04 of 2014. The Sessions Court had set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara, which had rejected the application of respondent No.1 (the wife) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking maintenance. The Sessions Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month to respondent No.1. The facts reveal that the respondent No.1/wife married the petitioner on 09.05.1993 and had two children, including respondent No.2/daughter. She alleged that the petitioner ill-treated her and drove her out of the house on 28.11.2009, after which she lived separately with her daughter. The petitioner resisted the maintenance application, contending that the wife was of quarrelsome nature and had developed an illicit relationship with one Rupesh Mundle, and that she left the house voluntarily to continue that relationship. The petitioner also claimed that his son had caught the wife in a compromising position with Rupesh Mundle. The Magistrate, after considering evidence, rejected the maintenance application, finding that the wife was living in adultery. The Sessions Court, in revision, reversed this finding and granted maintenance. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC and held that the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence without finding the Magistrate's order to be perverse. The High Court noted that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the petitioner's son and the wife's own admission of living with Rupesh Mundle, clearly established that the wife was living in adultery. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order rejecting maintenance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Adultery - Wife living in adultery is disentitled to maintenance - The husband alleged that the wife was living in adultery with one Rupesh Mundle. The Magistrate rejected the wife's maintenance application on this ground. The Sessions Court in revision reversed the order and granted maintenance. The High Court held that the Sessions Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence without finding perversity, and that the evidence on record clearly established the wife's adulterous conduct. Held that the wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of revision - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or illegal. The Sessions Court in this case set aside the well-reasoned order of the Magistrate without pointing out any perversity. Held that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No.1/wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the petitioner/husband alleges that she is living in adultery.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Sessions Court, Bhandara, and restored the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara rejecting the maintenance application.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not payable to a wife who is living in adultery
- Burden of proof of adultery lies on the husband
- Standard of proof for adultery in maintenance proceedings is preponderance of probabilities
- Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse
