The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife who voluntarily leaves her husband due to financial incompatibility cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, especially if there’s evidence of remarriage or misleading documents.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
ALLAHABAD: In a decision, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a wife challenging the rejection of her maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that the petitioner was living separately from her husband without a valid justification and had presented misleading information regarding her marital status.
Background
The wife approached the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, seeking to overturn a Family Court ruling in Chandauli that had refused her maintenance claim. The Family Court had concluded that the petitioner had voluntarily separated from her husband and that her claims lacked credibility.
Arguments From Both Sides
Petitioner’s Case:
The wife, through her counsel, argued that she had sufficient reasons for leaving her husband, including alleged cruelty. She also questioned the validity of an out-of-court settlement between the parties and denied having remarried, challenging the Family Court’s acceptance of evidence provided by her former husband.
Husband’s Case:
The husband, supported by the State, argued that the marriage had effectively ended through a prior divorce settlement. They also pointed out that the wife had remarried two years after the settlement, which, in their view, made her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Findings by the Court
Justice Madan Pal Singh highlighted several issues that influenced the Court’s decision:
- Voluntary Separation: The petitioner admitted that she left her matrimonial home voluntarily, citing financial incompatibility, and moved back to her wealthy parental home.
- Document Discrepancies: The Court found inconsistencies in her Aadhaar Card, which initially listed her husband’s name but was later altered to reflect her father’s name. The submission of outdated documents was considered misleading.
- Evidence of Second Marriage: Documents and a certificate from the local Village Pradhan indicated that the petitioner had remarried in 2018. She did not take steps to legally challenge this evidence.
- Lack of Credible Allegations: The Court did not find her claims of cruelty credible, concluding that the separation was largely voluntary.
The High Court reiterated that:
- Maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC require genuine need and inability to sustain oneself.
- Providing false or misleading documents can severely undermine such claims.
- High Courts reviewing Family Court decisions in criminal revision petitions cannot re-evaluate evidence unless there is clear illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Family Court’s judgment. No costs were imposed on either party.
Case Title:
Smt. Gudiya Versus State of U.P. and Another
CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 6348 of 2023
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
