Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a revision petition filed by a wife under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, dated 29.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.390/2022. The wife, along with her two daughters, had originally sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the respondent husband. The Family Court partly allowed that petition, rejecting the maintenance claims of the wife and the elder daughter, while directing the respondent to pay the younger daughter Rs.8,000 per month until her marriage or suitable employment and to bear her entire educational expenses until completion of education. Aggrieved by the rejection of her own claim, the wife filed the revision before the High Court of Karnataka. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1995, and they lived together without disturbance for over 25 years until 2021. The husband had purchased a house site in the wife's name after obtaining a loan. The wife left the matrimonial home in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic to care for her parents and sister, who were suffering from COVID-19, and her father also suffered a heart attack. According to the respondent, she failed to return despite repeated requests and even lodged a police complaint when he went to her parents' house to ask her to return. The wife alleged harassment and cruelty by the husband, but the Family Court found no substantive proof of such harassment. The Family Court considered Ex.R1, the complaint, and Ex.R3, the statement given by the wife to police, which indicated that she left to care for her relatives and that her husband had approached her requesting her return. The High Court examined the essential requirements for a wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain, the wife's inability to maintain herself, and the husband's sufficient means. It reiterated that the primary object of Section 125 CrPC corresponding to Section 144 BNSS is social justice, but grant is not automatic. It held that leaving the matrimonial home without justification and reasonable cause is a disqualification. On facts, the court found neither refusal nor neglect by the husband. The wife failed to establish a reasonable cause for withdrawing from the society of the respondent. The High Court therefore concluded that the Family Court's decision did not suffer from any error requiring interference and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order that denied maintenance to the wife and elder daughter while affirming the maintenance and educational expenses awarded to the younger daughter.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Maintenance - Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Object and Statutory Requirements - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC corresponding to Section 144 BNSS is aimed at social justice, prevention of exploitation, protection of the vulnerable and upholding human dignity; however, grant is not automatic and requires proof that the husband neglected or refused to maintain, the wife is unable to maintain herself, and the husband has sufficient means - High Court held that the wife failed to establish neglect or refusal and therefore her claim was liable to be rejected (Paras 7-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Maintenance - Disqualification - Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Leaving Matrimonial Home Without Reasonable Cause - A wife who leaves the matrimonial home without justification and reasonable cause is disqualified from claiming maintenance from her husband - Evidence showed wife left during COVID-19 to care for her parents and sister, failed to return despite repeated requests, and gave a police complaint when husband asked her to return; Family Court found no reasonable cause and High Court upheld that finding (Paras 6-9) C) Family Courts Act - Revision - Section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Scope of Revisional Interference - High Court does not interfere with findings of Family Court unless there are grounds to set them aside - Here the Family Court had considered evidence including Ex.R1 complaint and Ex.R3 police statement, concluded wife withdrew from respondent's society without reasonable cause, and High Court found no grounds to interfere, dismissing the revision petition (Paras 2-3, 6, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite having left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause, and whether the Family Court's order rejecting her claim while granting maintenance to the younger daughter suffered from any error warranting interference under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984.
Final Decision
Revision petition dismissed; Family Court order dated 29.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.390/2022 upheld, including rejection of wife's and elder daughter's maintenance and direction to respondent to pay Rs.8,000 per month to younger daughter and bear her educational expenses till education completion.
Law Points
- Wife must prove neglect or refusal to maintain
- inability to maintain herself
- sufficient means of husband
- grant of maintenance not automatic
- leaving matrimonial home without justification and reasonable cause is a disqualification
- primary object is social justice
- prevention of exploitation
- protection of vulnerable
- upholding human dignity
