Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the petitioner wife. It granted monthly maintenance to the wife under Section 125 CrPC, reaffirmed the maintenance for the minor son, and directed that maintenance would be payable from the date of the application, not merely the order date. The Court held that mere allegations of adultery without cogent evidence cannot disentitle a wife to maintenance, especially when she has been compelled to live separately due to dowry-related harassment.
Facts
The petitioner wife filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC claiming Rs. 20,000 per month for herself and her minor son from her husband, alleging that she was driven out of her matrimonial home due to her inability to meet additional dowry demands. She claimed her husband remarried without providing any maintenance to her or her child, despite having sufficient means. The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4000 per month only for the minor son but denied maintenance to the wife, holding that she was living in adultery.
Issues
Whether the wife was disentitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on allegations of adultery without cogent evidence.
Whether the wife was forced to live separately due to dowry demands, entitling her to maintenance.
Whether maintenance should be granted from the date of the application or the order.
Whether the maintenance awarded to the minor son was just and reasonable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Family Court erred in denying her maintenance based on unproven allegations of adultery. She contended that she was forced out of her matrimonial home due to dowry demands and had no independent means of livelihood, while her husband was capable of maintaining her. She further argued that the maintenance awarded to her son was inadequate and should be payable from the date of the application.
Respondent’s Arguments
The husband argued that the wife had left the matrimonial home without cause and was living in adultery with another man, which disentitled her to maintenance. He claimed he was a labourer earning a meagre income, had remarried, and was also maintaining his second wife and their child, limiting his ability to pay higher maintenance.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed Section 125 CrPC, explaining that a wife living separately with sufficient cause and without being in adultery is entitled to maintenance if she lacks independent means, and the husband has sufficient means. It clarified that adultery must be proved with cogent evidence, and mere allegations are insufficient to deny maintenance. The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, Danial Latifi, and Shayara Bano, reiterating the secular and protective character of Section 125 CrPC, even for divorced Muslim women unless a fair provision for their future has been made. The Court also discussed Shayara Bano and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, declaring instant triple talaq void, holding that the petitioner remained legally married and entitled to maintenance.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment relied on:
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556: Right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is unaffected by personal laws.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740: Obligation of the husband to make reasonable and fair provision for a divorced wife’s future, extending beyond iddat.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1: Instant triple talaq is void and illegal.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324: Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should ordinarily be granted from the date of the application.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39: Struck down adultery as a criminal offence while clarifying its civil implications.
These cases reinforced the petitioner’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- The husband failed to prove allegations of adultery with credible evidence.
- The wife was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to dowry harassment.
- Triple talaq claimed by the husband was invalid and ineffective, leaving the marital tie intact.
- The wife lacked independent means while the husband, being able-bodied, was presumed capable of maintaining her and the child.
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should be awarded from the date of the application to ensure fair justice.
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Set aside the Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the wife.
- Directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance to the wife in addition to the existing maintenance for the minor son.
- Ordered that maintenance for both should be payable from the date of the original application, not merely from the order date.
- Clarified that the quantum of maintenance should be determined considering the husband’s means, the needs of the wife and child, and the standard of living previously enjoyed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that mere unproven allegations of adultery cannot disentitle a wife from maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It upholds the protective intent of maintenance provisions, especially for women forced to live separately due to harassment or dowry demands, and clarifies that maintenance is to be granted from the date of application. It reaffirms the invalidity of triple talaq under Indian law and protects the rights of Muslim women under Section 125 CrPC.
Short Notes on Cases Referred
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum: Section 125 CrPC is secular and applicable to all, including Muslim women.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India: Maintenance obligations extend beyond iddat if the husband fails to provide fair and reasonable provision.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India: Instant triple talaq is unconstitutional, leaving marital status intact for maintenance claims.
- Rajnesh v. Neha: Maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of application to avoid prejudice.
FAQs
1. Can allegations of adultery without proof bar a wife from maintenance?
No, mere allegations without cogent evidence cannot deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
2. From when is maintenance payable under Section 125 CrPC?
Ordinarily, maintenance is payable from the date of the application, ensuring fairness to the claimant.
3. Is triple talaq valid for denying maintenance to a wife?
No, as triple talaq is void under Indian law, and the marital status continues, entitling the wife to maintenance.
