Disposed¶18

Rani Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Jun 2024Cr.Rev./1052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr. Rev. No. 1052 of 2019; decided 26.06.2024 by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary (oral order). Subject: maintenance of wife under Section 125 and bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.; wife refusing/willfully deserting husband; sufficient reason to withdraw from husband's company; husband's extra-marital relationship and assault; trial court's disbelief of petitioner's witnesses; P.W.2 not eyewitness; no complaint or police case lodged. Result: impugned rejection order dated 05.07.2019 in O.M. No. 06 of 2018 set aside; trial court directed to decide afresh after hearing parties; revision disposed of. Parties: Rani Mahato v. The State of Jharkhand and Anil Tidwar @ Mahato.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.07.2019 set aside; learned court below directed to pass order afresh after hearing the parties.

Rani Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 05.07.2019 set aside; learned court below directed to pass order afresh after hearing the parties.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-wife, who withdrew from the company of opposite party no. 2, is entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., i.e., whether she had sufficient reason for refusing to live with her husband.

¶11

Court's answer

A wife who, without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance; when a wife willfully deserts her husband she will not be entitled to maintenance, unless she has sufficient reason for not living with him.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Exception to the Section 125(4) bar: where the husband is responsible for creating an atmosphere in which the wife cannot live with her self-respect, the wife has sufficient reason for withdrawing from the company of her husband.

¶13

Key takeaways

On the facts, in view of the testimony of the witnesses examined for the petitioner regarding opposite party no. 2's extra-marital relationship and assault on the petitioner, this Court held the petitioner had sufficient reason to withdraw from the company of her husband and cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.ratio¶14
The impugned order rejecting the maintenance petition is set aside.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance — Section 125/125(4) Cr.P.C. — Criminal revision against trial court's rejection of wife's maintenance petition. Held: a wife who, without sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband is not entitled to maintenance, but where the husband creates an atmosphere in which she cannot live with her self-respect, she has sufficient reason for withdrawing from his company. Applying this, and in view of the testimony of the petitioner's witnesses as to the husband's extra-marital relationship and assault, the Court held the petitioner had sufficient reason to withdraw from her husband's company and cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Impugned order set aside; court below directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. Revision petition stands disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 1052 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Rani Mahato … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anil Tidwar @ Mahato … …. Opp. Parties

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : M/s P.A.S. Pati & Anjali Kumari, Advocates -----

¶6

Oral Order

¶7

09 / Dated : 26.06.2024

¶8

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in O.M. No. 06 of 2018, whereby and where under, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are other evidences also of the applicant regarding being assaulted for which the petitioner withdrew from the company of opposite party no. 2. P.W. 1 has stated in para 7 and 9 that opposite party no. 2 had extra marital relationship. Other witnesses had also testified to the same effect.

¶10

It is argued by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that the court below has extensively considered the witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant and held that P.W.2 in para 16 of her cross-examination stated that she was not the eye witness to the illicit relationship. Furthermore, no complaint or police case was lodged with regard to the allegation made in the maintenance application. The petitioner herself has deposed that her husband wanted to keep her but she did not want to live with her husband.

¶11

Under Section 125(4), the wife shall not be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance from her husband if, inter alia, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband.

¶12

Law is settled that a wife is not entitled to receive maintenance if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband. From this provision it follows that when a wife willfully deserts her husband then she will not be entitled to receive maintenance. This will, however, not apply in such cases where she has sufficient reason for not living with the husband. If in any case,

¶13

the husband is responsible for creating such an atmosphere where the wife cannot live with her self-respect, then in that circumstance, it can be said that the wife has sufficient reason for withdrawing from the company of her husband.

¶14

In the present case, learned Trial Court has disbelieved the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner wherein they had stated that opposite party no. 2 was having extra marital relationship and also used to assault the petitioner. In view of the testimony of the witnesses, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had sufficient reason to withdraw from the company of her husband and, therefore, she cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

¶15

The impugned order is set aside.

¶16

Learned court below is directed to pass order afresh after hearing the

¶17

parties.

¶18

Cr. Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶19

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

AKT/Satayendra

¶21

Uploaded

Rani Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad R.K.Khosla Vs Braham Bhushan Khosla

Amrendra Kumar Sinha Vs State of Bihar And Anr.

Sardar Surendra Singh Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Dinesh Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhad

Jagbandhu Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Rajendra Prasad  R.K.Khosla Vs Braham Bhushan Khosla

Amrendra Kumar Sinha Vs State of Bihar And Anr.

Sardar Surendra Singh Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Dinesh Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhad

Jagbandhu Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Prasad R.K.Khosla Vs Braham Bhushan Khosla