Husband Cannot Reagitate Settled Marriage Dispute To Escape Maintenance Liability: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband cannot reopen a marriage dispute that has already been finally decided in earlier proceedings in order to avoid his liability to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife.
The parties had married according to Hindu rites in 2002 and in 2003, the husband instituted a suit seeking a declaration that he was unmarried and an injunction restraining the woman from claiming to be his wife.
The suit was initially decreed in his favour. However, the wife challenged the decree in appeal, which was allowed in 2006. The husband's second appeal was dismissed in 2011, thereby upholding the finding in favour of the marriage.
Meanwhile, the wife had initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance in 2008.
The Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition till December 2011, ₹10,000 per month from January 2012 to December 2013, and ₹10,000 per month thereafter, besides ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses.
Before the High Court, the husband again contended that the woman was not his legally wedded wife and that her claim of a matrimonial relationship was untenable. He also argued that the earlier appellate judgment had been based on technicalities and not on merits and therefore could not operate against him in the maintenance proceedings.
The High Court rejected these contentions, noting that the issue of the parties' marriage had already been conclusively settled in the earlier proceedings.
"Today, the petitioner is bound by the outcome of the aforesaid proceedings, as they are final and conclusive. The petitioner cannot seek to escape the outcome thereof by, once again, de novo contending the very same decided issues in another/ fresh proceeding at a later stage," the Court observed.
It added that the petitioner could not be permitted to have "another bite at the cherry" by attempting to reopen the settled issue of marriage.
As such, the Court held that the woman was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and therefore came within the ambit of Section 125 CrPC.
On merits, the Court observed that as a husband, the petitioner owed a "legal debt to maintain" his wife and therefore, dismissed his plea.
Appearance: Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Nakul Nirwan, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Mukesh Gupta and Mr. Raghav Gupta, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: A v. M
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018