Maintenance denied 12.02.2020 – Filing RCR on Right Time & Favourable Decision on it can help the husbands to Free from paying Maintenance and Get the Maintenance Order Cancelled.

Maintenance Denied, No Maintenance to Wife, 125 CrPC

Maintenance denied 12.02.2020 – Filing RCR on Right Time & Favourable Decision on it can help the husbands to Free from paying Maintenance and Get the Maintenance Order Cancelled.

[Read 498A Quash Judgments]

Koppadi Bakta Markandeyulu vs Koppadi Sri Lakshmi on 12 February, 2020

In this decision the High Court held that despite the order passed in OP. filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife had not joined with him and got a divorce order. As such, she voluntarily desert the petitioner and refused to live with him, without any sufficient cause. Such being the factual position, the wife is not entitled for maintenance, in terms of Section 125(5) Cr.P.C.

Section 125(5) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – “On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order”.

You can contact for consultation or advice Contact now

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Due to a matrimonial dispute between the parties, they got separated. The respondent filed a petition for maintenance in MC, which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. She preferred a revision petition in Crl.MP before the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry and the said petition was allowed, enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, she filed a petition in Cr.MP. in MC. seeking further enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.10,000/- per month. By order dated 02.04.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam, directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. There is no representation for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed OP. for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2009. However, the respondent did not join with the petitioner and she filed OP seeking divorce, which was allowed vide order dated 19.07.2012. Since the respondent, without any sufficient reason, refused to live with her husband, she is not entitled for maintenance as per Section 125(5) Cr.P.C

4. On 08.06.2018, this Court, while admitting this Criminal Revision, has granted an order of interim stay on condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/ to the respondent on or before 5th of every succeeding English calender month.

5. On a careful perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that despite the order passed in OP. filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent had not joined with him and got a divorce order. As such, she voluntarily desert the petitioner and refused to live with him, without any sufficient cause. Such being the factual position, the respondent is not entitled for maintenance, in terms of Section 125(5) Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned herein.

You can contact for consultation or advice Contact now

6. Accordingly, the High Court held that Criminal Revision stands allowed by setting aside the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Yanam. 


Note: Filling RCR is a critical decision, using this provision without proper guidance can back fire. Need to analyze the case scenarios and only can be implemented on case to case basis.

Queries can be asked in Comment section below.

WhatsApp