Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhagwan Singh vs Kalabai on 22 August, 2019

Author: Sheel Nagu

Bench: Sheel Nagu

                                   1           Cr.R. No. 6125/2018

              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       Cr.R. No. 6125/2018
                     (Bhagwan Singh Vs. Kalabai)

Gwalior, Dated 22.08.2019

        Shri Rajiv Jain with Shri Ashok Deswal, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

        None for the respondent.

Challenge in this petition u/S. 397/401 CrPC is to the final order dated 12.10.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Sironj District Vidisha granting maintenance allowance to the respondent/wife of Rs. 1500/- per month w.e.f. 24.07.2012 date of application u/S. 125 CrPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband relying upon the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Kamla Bai Vs. Gajanand 1984 MPWN Note No. 170 contends that the facts of the case disclose that respondent/wife voluntarily left matrimonial home and thereafter stayed away for more than two decades to wake up from her stupor to file an application u/S. 125 CrPC which led to passing of impugned order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that voluntarily abondonment of matrimonial home by the respondent/wife and the delayed approach before JMFC u/S. 125 CrPC by the wife are good enough reasons to render the application u/S. 125 CrPC not maintainable.

Bare facts reflected from the application u/S. 125 CrPC which was filed in 2012 reveal that 25 years ago, the petitioner/husband and 2 Cr.R. No. 6125/2018 respondent/wife got married. The wife contended that she was forcibly pushed out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner/husband and since then is living with her daughter who in 2012 was aged about 15-16 years. The application u/S. 125 CrPC further averred that petitioner/husband is maintaining extra-marital relationship with one Punia Bai and therefore declined to co-habit with the respondent/wife who is also dissuaded because of the said adulterous conduct of the petitioner/husband to reside with him. Respondent/wife also contended that she is unable to maintain herself as she has become old and thus physically weak.

Per contra, petitioner/husband though denied the fact of leading adulterous life but stated that respondent/wife voluntarily left matrimonial home about 25 years ago.

The trial Court while dealing with the aspect of delayed approach by the wife u/S. 125 CrPC found in the face of evidence on record that wife was compelled to leave matrimonial home for the reasons not attributed to her and thus it would be unjust to reject the application u/S. 125 CrPC especially in the face of failure of husband to deny the contention of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself.

After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this court is of the considered view that though there is a considerable delay with which petitioner/wife approached the court of JMFC u/S. 125 CrPC but the wife by establishing prerequisites, of being unable to maintain herself due to old age and ailment and living away from the husband for reasons not attributed to her, is entitled in the considered opinion of this court, to 3 Cr.R. No. 6125/2018 the benefit flowing u/S. 125 of CrPC.

It appears that wife at the time when she left matrimonial home about i.e. 25-26 years ago, was an able bodied woman who was conscientious enough not to beg for maintenance allowance before her husband and therefore earned her own livelihood to sustain herself and her daughter but the passage of time made old age and ill health set in, whereafter the respondent/wife felt the need to seek maintenance allowance. If the factor of late filing of application u/S. 125 CrPC is viewed from the aforesaid angle, the cause of wife u/S. 125 CrPC cannot be scuttled merely on the anvil of delay and latches.

Consequently, the order passed by learned JMFC granting maintenance allowance to the wife cannot be found fault with, in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this court.

Accordingly, this criminal revision stands dismissed. No cost.

(Sheel Nagu) Judge ojha YOGENDR A OJHA 2019.08.2 8 12:45:40

-07'00'