Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

  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.

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.

(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.

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.