Patna High Court rules a husband cannot deny maintenance to his wife using a disputed Mubaraat under Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing a formal divorce decree and fair provision for the spouse.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: In a judgment on maintenance law, the Patna High Court has ruled that a husband cannot deny maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) merely by relying on a disputed compromise deed claiming mutual divorce, commonly known as “Mubaraat.” The court emphasized that a contested divorce requires a formal decree from a competent court, and its validity cannot be summarily determined in maintenance proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case arose when a woman approached the Family Court, Bhagalpur, seeking maintenance from her husband. She stated that she married in December 2010 but was compelled to leave her matrimonial home shortly after due to alleged torture. Claiming to have no independent source of income, she sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 from her husband, who was employed with a private company in Singapore and reportedly earned a substantial income.
In response, the husband admitted to the marriage but denied the cruelty allegations. His main defense was that the marriage had already been dissolved by mutual consent through a prior matrimonial case. He claimed that during proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, a compromise had been reached, and he had paid Rs. 1,00,000 to his wife toward alimony, mahr, and iddat expenses, thereby ending all future maintenance liability.
Family Court’s Findings
On March 20, 2021, the Family Court, Bhagalpur, rejected the husband’s claim of divorce. Key observations included:
- The wife disputed the compromise petition, alleging her signature was obtained fraudulently.
- The husband failed to present credible evidence proving the divorce.
- Considering the husband’s monthly income of Rs. 1,00,000 and the wife’s lack of income, the court held that he neglected his duty to maintain her.
Consequently, the Family Court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance.
High Court’s Analysis
The husband challenged the Family Court’s order through a criminal revision petition in the Patna High Court.
Justice Jitendra Kumar noted that the central legal question was whether a husband could evade maintenance when the divorce itself is disputed. The High Court highlighted several procedural lapses:
- The compromise petition, relied upon as proof of divorce, was never formally exhibited as evidence.
- The wife was therefore deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the document’s authenticity.
- As a result, the court held that the compromise petition had “hardly any evidentiary value in the eyes of the law.”
The court also emphasized that summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not suitable for deciding contested marital status. If a mutual agreement for divorce is disputed, the party asserting divorce must obtain a formal decree from a competent authority like the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Justice Jitendra Kumar further noted that even if the divorce were assumed valid, the husband would remain liable for maintenance. He clarified:
- A divorced Muslim wife who has not remarried is entitled to reasonable and fair provision for her future.
- The one-time payment of Rs. 1,00,000 was insufficient as it also included den mohar, which is her separate entitlement.
- Maintenance should cover residence, food, clothing, and other essentials, ensuring the wife’s reasonable livelihood.
The Patna High Court dismissed the husband’s petition, upholding the Family Court’s maintenance order of Rs. 7,000 per month. The judgment reinforces a crucial legal principle that,
A disputed compromise or informal agreement cannot override a wife’s statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and formal judicial intervention is necessary to validate a divorce.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Advocates Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Mr. Vikas Kumar
For the State: Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, APP
For the O.P. No.2: Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
Case Title:
Md Murshid Alam Versus The State of Bihar & Anr.
CRIMINAL REVISION No.657 of 2022
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
