Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal writ petition filed by the husband under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which reversed the Magistrate's order and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The couple married in 2003 and cohabited for two years. The wife alleged that the husband demanded money for land purchase and assaulted her in August 2008, driving her out. She filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC and later a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC. The Magistrate rejected her application, but the Sessions Court allowed her revision and granted maintenance. The husband challenged this order. The High Court framed the issue of whether the wife was entitled to maintenance when she refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason and was capable of earning. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the wife's allegations of cruelty and demand for money were not substantiated. The wife had left the matrimonial home and refused to return despite the husband's notice. The court held that under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife who refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance. Additionally, the wife was found to be capable of earning and had not proved her inability to maintain herself. The court also noted that the husband's second marriage does not automatically entitle the wife to maintenance if she is at fault. 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 Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Refusal to live with husband - Wife's refusal to cohabit without sufficient reason disentitles her to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC - The court held that the wife's allegations of cruelty and demand for money were not proved, and she failed to show sufficient reason for living separately - The husband's second marriage does not automatically entitle the wife to maintenance if she is capable of earning and refuses to live with husband without just cause (Paras 5-10). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Wife's earning capacity - Wife must prove inability to maintain herself - The court observed that the wife was able to earn and had not made efforts to maintain herself, thus not entitled to maintenance - The burden lies on the wife to show she is unable to maintain herself (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason and is capable of earning?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Court order, and restored the Magistrate's order rejecting maintenance.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Refusal to live with husband without sufficient reason
- Wife's earning capacity
- Burden of proof on wife to show inability to maintain herself
- Second marriage by husband not automatic ground for maintenance
