125 CRPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019- Wife is not entitled to get maintenance, as she is living separately on her own will. Application dismissed.
 |
| 125 CRPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019 |
125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019- In this article, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the family court has committed an error of law in allowing the application for a grant of maintenance, as the case is not in favor of the wife. The wife is not entitled to get any maintenance amount, as she is residing separately on her own will. Therefore, the application filed by the wife under Section 125 CrPC for the grant of maintenance is hereby dismissed.
Case Brief- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
According to the facts mentioned in the application filed by the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized on 03.08.2015, as per Muslim Rituals and Customs, and the wife and her husband are not having any child.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife started to live with the husband and his family members in her matrimonial home.
It is also stated that after a few years of the marriage, the husband and the parents-in-law harassed the wife and demanded dowry from her.
Case Brief- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
Upon this, the wife registered an FIR against her husband and parents-in-law under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After a compromise, the wife again started living with the husband and his family members.
Later the wife filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC against the husband for a grant of a maintenance amount, stating that after some time of the marriage, the husband persistently made demands of dowry from the wife, and he used to harass her.
Case Brief- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
The wife also stated that when that demand of dowry was not meted out, the husband showed the door to the wife on 12.04.2016 and since then, the wife is residing in the house of her mother.
The wife further stated that she does not have any source of income thus, she found it difficult to maintain herself, whereas the husband is having ten bighas of agricultural land, and he is also engaged in the business of selling cattle, thereby earning one lakh per annum.
Therefore, the wife made the prayer for a grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month before the family court and the said application was partly allowed by the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 and the family court directed the husband to pay Rs.3,000 per month towards the maintenance of the wife.
Feeling aggrieved by the fixation of the maintenance amount, the husband has filed the present revision application.
_________________________________________________
Read the latest Article- 498A Quash Judgement 01.11.2022- Andhra Pradesh High Court - General and Omnibus Allegations against the Brother-in-law. F.I.R Quashed.
Arguments- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
The advocate appearing on behalf of the husband submitted that the wife is not entitled to get any maintenance amount, as she is residing separately on her own will.
It is also submitted that the wife accepted that she does not want to live in a joint family and if the husband makes arrangements for a separate residence, then she is ready to live with him and in spite of that, the family court has committed an error by directing the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife as a maintenance amount.
Therefore, he prayed for allowing the revision application, and for quashing the order dated 22.11.2018 by the family court and the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance.
_________________________________________________
Court’s Opinion- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
It is stated that after considering the contentions of the advocate appearing on behalf of the husband and perusal of the record of the family court, the court is of opinion that the family court has committed an error of law in allowing the application for grant of maintenance, as the case is not in favor of the wife.
It is also stated that the wife has accepted in her statement that earlier she lodged the FIR against her husband and parents-in-law for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, later, the wife compromised the matter and retired back to her matrimonial house.
Later, the wife again left her matrimonial home and stated in her cross-examination that she is ready to live with her husband if the husband makes arrangements for their separate residence.
Court’s Opinion- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
It is further stated that the wife has stated that the husband has taken separate near the matrimonial house and the wife remained with her husband in the said house for a period of ten days, and then she returns to the matrimonial house, which shows that the husband has made arrangement for separate living for the wife.
Furthermore, it is stated that even then, the wife is not ready to reside with the husband by taking false excuses and the wife has also accepted that she has not filed any document regarding the proof of the income of her husband.
Therefore, it is clear that the wife has also failed to prove the income of the husband.
Court’s Opinion- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
Upon view of the above discussion, the court held that the findings recorded by the family court are not in accordance with the evidence led by both, the wife and the husband, and the family court has committed an error in directing the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife as maintenance.
Therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the family court is hereby set aside, and the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance is hereby dismissed.
________________________________________________
Conclusion- 125 CrPC Maintenance Denied 04.07.2019
In this article, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the family court has committed an error of law in allowing the application for a grant of maintenance, as the case is not in favor of the wife.
It is also held that the wife is ready to live with her husband if the husband makes arrangements for their separate residence and when the husband has made arrangements for separate living for the wife, the wife is not ready to reside with the husband and made false excuses and the wife has also failed to prove the income of the husband.
Therefore, the revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the family court is hereby set aside, and the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance is hereby dismissed.
In this article, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the family court has committed an error of law in allowing the application for a grant of maintenance, as the case is not in favor of the wife.
It is also held that the wife is ready to live with her husband if the husband makes arrangements for their separate residence and when the husband has made arrangements for separate living for the wife, the wife is not ready to reside with the husband and made false excuses and the wife has also failed to prove the income of the husband.
Therefore, the revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the family court is hereby set aside, and the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance is hereby dismissed.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment