Judgment Analysis - Manoj Kumar Vs. Champa Devi - Maintenance

MANOJ KUMAR V. CHAMPA DEVI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4666 of 2017 in Petitions For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 10137 Of 2015

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

DECIDED ON -06/04/2017

In the above mentioned case law the Apex Court held that the wife may claim maintenance despite divorced by husband on ground of desertion.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. 1. In the present matter Manoj Kumar (husband) is the petitioner and Champa Devi (Wife) is the respondent. The husband obtained the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

2. The wife filed a petition under section 125 Crpc and the petitioner was directed to pay the sum of ` 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent as per the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

3. The respondent later filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, which was decided on 12.6.2012 and the maintenance was enhanced from ` 1,000/- to `3,000/- per month.

4. Aggrieved of the judgment the husband moved a petition under the Himachal Pradesh High Court and contended before the high court that he, having obtained a decree of divorce on the basis of desertion, was under no obligation to pay maintenance to the respondent in view of the provisions contained in Section 125 (4) CrPC.

5. However, referring to various judgments the High Court directed the husband to grant maintenance to his deserter wife, whom he had divorced, from the date when the divorce was decreed.

6. The husband approached the Supreme Court assailing the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

The Apex while deciding the matter has taken into consideration the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which took the reference of the case of Vanamala vs. HM Ranganatha Bhatta(1995) 5 SCC 299

The Court in this case referred to Para 3 of the judgment wherein the expression ‘wife’ has been construed in the following manner:

3.Section 125 of the Code makes provision for the grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of section 125 inter alia says that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife not exceeding Rs.500/- in the whole, as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. Clause (b) of the explanation to the sub-section defines the expression ‘wife’ to include a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. In the instant case it is not contended by the respondent that the appellant has remarried after the decree of divorce was obtained under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was the legally wedded wife of the respondent prior to the passing of the decree of divorce. By virtue of the definition referred to above she would, therefore, be entitled to maintenance if she could show that the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain her.

The Court further observed that on plain reading of the sub section 4 of the Section 125 Crpc it seems fairly clear that the expression ‘wife’ in the said sub-section does not have the extended meaning of including a woman who has been divorced.  This is for the obvious reason that unless there is a relationship of husband and wife there can be no question of a divorcee woman living in adultery or without sufficient reason refusing to live with her husband. After divorce where is the occasion for the women to live with her husband? Similarly there would be no question of the husband and wife living separately by mutual consent because after divorce there is no need for consent to live separately. In the context, therefore, sub-section (4) of section 125 does not apply to the case of a woman who has been divorced or who has obtained a decree for divorce. In our view, therefore, this contention is not well founded.”

The Court further took into consideration the Case of Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendri 2000 SC 952 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the maintenance has been allowed to the respondent from the date of the application. The application under sec 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent during the pendency of the civil suit for divorce under Sec 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended that since the decree of divorce was passed on the ground of desertion by respondent, she would not be entitled to maintenance for any period prior to the passing of the decree under sec 13  of the Hindu Marriage Act. To that extent, learned counsel appears to be correct. But for that short period, we would not be inclined to interfere.

JUDGMENT/RULING

After hearing the counsels for both the parties the Apex Court Dismissed the Special Leave petition filed by the husband and while doing so considered the following merits:

• Having perused the impugned order, we are satisfied, that

the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court,

firstly, Vanamala (Smt) vs. H.M.Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC

299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendri (Smt) and others,

2000(3) SCC 952. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been

consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.

• For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no

justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in

exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively it can be said that The Supreme Court, upholding an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, granted maintenance to a divorced wife who had deserted her husband. Her husband had obtained divorce on the ground of desertion, and opposed her maintenance petition on the strength of an exception under Sec. 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This subsection states that a woman is not entitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without any reasonable cause. Reiterating its earlier position, the Court stated that a divorced wife also falls within the purview of Sec. 125 CrPC, and is thus entitled to maintenance. 

You may contact me for your specific case by visiting Contact Us