2 Nov 2022 9:39 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has said that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a matter of right to a neglected wife, even in cases where she withdraws the petition seeking divorce. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The divorce petition being withdrawn by the wife is of no avail as the wife is still in the matrimonial fold with the husband. So long as...
The Karnataka High Court has said that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a matter of right to a neglected wife, even in cases where she withdraws the petition seeking divorce.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The divorce petition being withdrawn by the wife is of no avail as the wife is still in the matrimonial fold with the husband. So long as the respondent remains a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the fact that she has been deserted by the husband, interim maintenance is a matter of right to the wife."
It added, "The order of the trial Court on an application filed by the wife under Section 125(1) CrPC cannot be taken exception merely because the petitioner is ready and willing to take her back."
The Petitioner-husband approached the court questioning the order of Family court directing him to pay Rs 7,000 interim maintenance to his estranged wife.
It is the case of the petitioner that he got married to the Respondent in March 2020 when they were aged 64 years and 58 years old, respectively. However, by May 2020, the respondent deserted him, left the matrimonial home and instituted two proceedings – one seeking divorce from him and the other under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance.
The petition seeking divorce was withdrawn by her. However, on the application filed under Section 125(1) of CrPC, an order was passed directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that interim maintenance is to be paid to a wife who has been neglected and deserted by the husband, but even as on date the petitioner is ready and willing to welcome the respondent back and lead a happy married life as both of them got married only for companionship.
On the other hand the respondent opposed the plea by contending that though she stayed with the petitioner for a month, it became impossible for her to live with him as he was constantly harassing her.
The bench on going through the averments made in the petition and considering the reply by the respondent said, "So long as the respondent remains the wife, it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife. Any other interpretation that the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to render to the provision, Section 125 of the CrPC, or the order passed by the concerned Court answering the application under Section 125(1) of the CrPC, would defeat the object of the provision itself."
Referring to the order passed by the trial court the bench said, "The reasons rendered are cogent and coherent which would not call for any interference at the hands of this Court."
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: XYZ v. ABC
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7582 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
Date of Order: 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
Appearance: VIKAS M., ADVOCATE for petitioner; GOVINDARAJU D.J., ADVOCATE for respondent
Click Here To Read/Download Order