Gauhati High Court - Kohima
Smti. Athrila Sangtam vs Shri Likhase L. T. Sangtam on 6 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC020002632024 2026:GAU-NL:200
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : CRL.REVN/6/2024
SMTI. ATHRILA SANGTAM
R/O H.NO. 391
HALF NAGARJAN
DIMAPUR NAGALAND
VERSUS
SHRI LIKHASE L. T. SANGTAM
R/O GRACE HOME
OPPOSITE VILLAGE COUNCIL HALL
PADUMPUKHRI
DIMAPUR NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : R L EZONG, PAKINRICHAPBO,ESTHER
Advocate for the Respondent : P. B. PAUL, PFOSEKHO PFOTTE,MEDO
VERO,CHUBANUNGKUM BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Date of Hearing : 06.04.2026 Date of Order : 06.04.2026 JUDGMENT&ORDER (O R A L) The instant petition under Section 397/401 of the CrPC R/W Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed assailing the Page No.# 2/13 impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 by the Family Court, Dimapur, Nagaland.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Esther K. Aye as well as Mr. P.B. Paul for the respondent.
3. The facts leading to the Maintenance case 04/2021 is that the petitioner and the respondent had been living together as husband and wife since October, 2015 and a formal wedding was held in the presence of the family members and friends of the parties on 16.01.2016.
4. After the marriage, the petitioner began to suffer domestic violence at the hands of the respondent. It is stated that beside physical abuse the petitioner was also subjected to verbal abuse and demeaning inhuman treatment by the respondent.
5. In the meantime, the respondent by application dated 15.08.2018 instituted a Divorce Case before the Gaon Bura's (GB) Customary Court at Kiphire.
6. On 20.08.2018, the respondent assaulted the petitioner and locked her out of the house. The petitioner, therefore, filed an FIR dated NIL, before the Women Police Station, Dimapur, as a result of which the respondent was taken into custody. While the respondent was in custody an agreement dated 20.08.2018 was drawn up between the petitioner and the respondent. In terms of the said Agreement signed on 20.08.2018, the respondent agreed to compensate the petitioner for the abuse inflicted on her and agreed, among other things, to give her the land Page No.# 3/13 covered by Patta No. 1119, Dag No. 449/1559 located at Padampukhri Village. It is further stated by the petitioner that pursuant to the agreement dated 20.08.2018, the petitioner received the following compensation from the respondent on 21.08.2018:
i. ₹5,00,000/- in cash and ii. One Hyundai i10 (Grand) with Smart Card and Insurance Policy.
7. On 10.10.2018, the petitioner filed a Domestic Violence Case No. 03 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur. By filing the said case, the petitioner sought protection and residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, DV Act). Pursuant thereto, the JMFC Dimapur was pleased to pass an interim order dated 10.10.2018 in favour of the petitioner. The DV case being, MISC Case (DV) No. 03/2018 was finally disposed of on 21.06.2024. In the final order passed on 21.06.2024, the petitioner was given protection order under Section 18 of the DV Act; residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act with a direction to secure alternative accommodation to the petitioner and pay the rent of the said accommodation for an amount of ₹12,000/- per month. The petitioner was also granted monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act by directing the respondent to make a monthly payment of ₹20,000/- per month as maintenance. Further, an amount of ₹40,000/- was also granted to the petitioner herein as compensation under Section 22 of the Act and the respondent was directed to pay the same in 6 monthly installments commencing from the month of the Order dated 21.06.2024.
Page No.# 4/13
8. While matters were pending thus, the GB's Customary Court pronounced its verdict on the Divorce Application preferred by the respondent and by an Order dated 15.11.2018, the GB's Customary Court held that the marriage of the parties stood dissolved. It was further held that although the Agreement dated 20.08.2015 would stand, the petitioner would not be entitled to the due amount of ₹15,00,000/-, the wedding gift of ₹1,50,000/- and the land located at Padampukhri Village. It was directed that the aforesaid three conditions/terms shall stand omitted from the Agreement dated 20.08.2018.
9. Subsequently, on 05.08.2021, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC being Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 before the Family Court, Dimapur seeking maintenance from the respondent. The respondent raised preliminary objections against the maintenance application of the petitioner on the ground that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable in view of the fact that the customary laws are protected by Article 371-A of the Constitution of India and that the GB's Customary Court had already settled the maintenance of the petitioner by Settlement Order dated 15.11.2018. It was also contended by the respondent that he had already given cash and other items contained in the Agreement dated 20.08.2018. It was further contended that the GB's Customary Court had already settled the maintenance of the petitioner and, therefore, the maintenance application before the Family Court was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
10. After hearing the parties the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dimapur upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondent and Page No.# 5/13 dismissed the Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 by holding that the Maintenance Case was not maintainable as the petitioner had already enjoyed part of the GB's Court Order and further held that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the GB's Customary Court, Kiphire Town.
11. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the following grounds:
i. That despite being empowered under Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act of 1984, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dimapur has declined to exercise jurisdiction vested it in it by law.
ii. That Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and hardship and as such, the preliminary objections raised by the respondent ought not to have been entertained by the Family Court.
iii. That the Family Court had wrongly come to a finding that after taking benefit of the Settlement Order dated 15.11.2018, passed by the GB's Customary Court, the petitioner was not permitted to seek relief under Section 125 of the CrPC.
iv. That the Family Court had erroneously relied on the Judgment dated 16.09.2013, passed in Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court Versus Union of India and Others in WP(C)/5873/2006 as the issue raised in the case of Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court (Supra) was not applicable in the instant case.
Page No.# 6/13 v. That the Family Court failed to consider that the dissolution of marriage by the GB's Customary Court would not disentitle the petitioner from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad Vrs State of Telangana And Another reported in AIR 2024 SC 3665. Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the obligation of a husband could not be affected by the existence of any personal law in the said regard and the independent remedy for seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is always available. The Court also went on to observe that even assuming, there is any conflict between the secular and personal laws in regard to maintenance being sought by a divorced wife, the explanation to the second proviso to Section 125(3) of the CrPC unmistakable shows the overriding nature of the former. It was also held in the said judgment that Section 125 of the CrPC applied to all non-Muslim divorced women. Learned counsel therefore prays that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 by the Family Court, Dimapur, Nagaland be quashed and set aside.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. P.B. Paul submits that the DV Case No. 03/2018 had been disposed of on 27.02.2024 by the learned JMFC Dimapur and the respondent in compliance with the said Order has been making a payment of ₹32,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance and house rent. He has also submitted that the matter has already been resolved as per customary practices and the respondent husband has handed over all the receivables as per the Page No.# 7/13 Settlement Order dated 15.11.2018 to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no further room to claim maintenance by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already received an amount of ₹5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) and one Hyundai i10 (Grand) vehicle with Smart Card and Insurance as per the Agreement entered into between the parties on 20.08.2018. The petitioner has also received one kitchen almirah with her belongings in the almirah, one wardrobe, one refrigerator, one sewing machine and flower pots. It is also submitted that the Order dated 15.11.2018 has attained finality and as such, the Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 is barred by res judicata. Finally, the learned counsel submits that the Maintenance issue has since been decided under customary law and as such the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the learned Family Court, and therefore, he prays that this Court may not interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024.
14. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the Trial Court Records.
15. Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision and the same is reproduced here below:
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1)If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, Page No.# 8/13 unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct : Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter, -(a)"minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority,(b)"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married.
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or Page No.# 9/13 interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Act 50 of 2001, Section 2 for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made :
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation. - If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.
(4)No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5)On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order".
16. A husband is bound to maintain his wife and children and a divorced Page No.# 10/13 wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC even if the divorce is granted on grounds of desertion. The capacity of the wife to earn is also no ground to deny maintenance. Maintenance under Section 125 is not restricted by customary laws or agreements. A divorced woman remains a "wife" under Section 125 CrPC until she remarries, and she is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband. If a customary court or personal law tribunal has awarded an amount that is insufficient for her sustenance, a Family Court can override or supplement that amount to ensure she does not become destitute. While she can claim 125 CrPC maintenance, the court will take into consideration any maintenance already received through the customary court or in a DV case when finalizing the new amount. Section 125 CrPC is a secular, summary, and independent statutory remedy. Moreover, it is settled law that the provision of Section 125 of the CrPC is secular in nature and is different from the personal law of the parties as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme court in Mohd. Abdul Samad stated that the obligation of a husband towards his divorced wife to pay maintenance cannot be affected by the existence of any other personal laws or customary law and the independent remedy for seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is always available to a divorced wife. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, while considering the entitlement of Muslim Women in the light of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, the Act of 1986) had further held that the rights created under the provision of the Act of 1986 was in addition to, and not in derogation, of the right created under Section 125 of the CrPC; and the Page No.# 11/13 Court held that ultimately a balance has to be made between the amount awarded under the 1986 Act and the one to be awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC. In conclusion, it was held that Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women.
17. In Rajnesh Versus Neha, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that while it is true that a party is not precluded from approaching the Court under one or more enactments, since the nature and purpose of the relief under each Act is distinct and independent, it is equally true that the simultaneous operation of these Acts, would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting orders. This process required streamlining, so that the respondent/husband is not obligated to comply with successive orders of maintenance passed under different enactments. The Court, hence, directed that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding required any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.
18. In the backdrop of the authorities cited in the foregoing paragraphs this Court upon going through the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024, finds that the only reason given by the learned Family Court in dismissing the Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 was that the Settlement Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the GB's Customary Court had already Page No.# 12/13 granted Maintenance in favour of the petitioner, The learned Court below also held that the petitioner had already taken the benefit of the Order of the GB's Customary Court and she was present during the hearing when the order was passed. The learned Trial Court also held that the petitioner had already enjoyed part of the GB's Customary Court's Order and is estopped from claiming further maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The learned Family Court was also of the view that once the case is tried by a Customary Court under the provisions of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, there is no provision for appeal to the regular court established under the CPC and CrPC and in this regard relied on the case of Registrar General Versus Union of India and Others in WP(C)/5873/2006. The Court, therefore, held that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal in the appropriate court if aggrieved by the Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the GB's Customary Court, Kiphire. Upon such premises, the Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 was dismissed.
19. In view of the above observations and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad (Supra) and Rajnesh (Supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner has every right to file a Maintenance Case under Section 125 of the CrPC, notwithstanding the fact that she has already received some payment and some articles as per the Agreement dated 20.08.2018 and notwithstanding the fact that a customary court has passed a settlement order. The reliance made by the learned Family Court on the case of Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court (Supra) is also misplaced as the facts and issues involved in the present case are different and distinct.
Page No.# 13/13
20. As a result, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 04/2021, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dimapur, Nagaland is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court to decide the Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 in accordance with law. It is not disputed by the petitioner that she has already received the compensation amount of ₹40,000/- in the DV case and that the respondent is paying the monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/- as well as the rent of ₹12,000/- per month as per the direction of the learned JMFC.
21. The learned Family court shall allow the parties to file their affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities and also lead evidence. The Court shall consider the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by both the parties; the evidence adduced and also take into account the fact that the petitioner has already received ₹5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs), a Hyundai i10 (Grand) vehicle, and is receiving ₹20,000/- as monthly maintenance and ₹12,000/- for monthly rent from the respondent and thereafter calculate grant the maintenance as deemed fit and proper.
22. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition is disposed of.
23. The Registry shall send back the Trial Court Records expeditiously.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant