Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 9
the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a Sessions Court decision that had granted monthly maintenance to a woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court restored the earlier order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara, which had rejected the maintenance plea, holding that the wife had chosen to live separately without a sufficient reason.
The case involved petitioner Shiv Kumar Yadav and his wife Smt. Santoshi Bai. Their marriage took place around one and a half years before the wife filed for maintenance in 1996. According to her, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty over dowry demands after their marriage. She claimed that her husband left her at the Bemetara bus stand and disappeared, forcing her to take shelter with her maternal grandmother.
Shiv Kumar denied the allegations, asserting that his wife had refused to return to his home without justification. He even approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 98 of the CrPC to bring her back, but she stated before the SDM that she would not return even if he assured her of good behavior.
After examining the evidence, the Magistrate concluded that Santoshi Bai was not entitled to maintenance because she had refused to live with her husband without a valid cause. However, the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bemetara, later reversed that finding, granting her Rs. 500 per month as maintenance.
The High Court found the Sessions Court’s order “perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.” Justice Bhadoo noted that Santoshi Bai had failed to substantiate her claims of cruelty or dowry harassment. Her own grandfather’s testimony contradicted her allegations, and the Court emphasized that she did not produce any witness or report to support her claims.
The Court also referred to a Kerala High Court precedent (Mammad Kunhi v. Rikhiya, 1978 CrLJ 1645), reiterating that the burden lies on the husband to prove that the wife refused to live with him without sufficient reason. Once that is established, the wife must justify her decision to live apart. Justice Bhadoo held that Shiv Kumar had fulfilled his burden by offering to bring his wife home and filing a formal petition to that effect.
Concluding that the wife’s refusal to live with her husband was unjustified, the High Court restored the Magistrate’s original order rejecting her maintenance claim. The judgment reinforces the principle that a wife cannot claim maintenance if she voluntarily lives apart from her husband without a reasonable cause.
Case Details : Criminal Revision No. 544 of 2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav vs. Santoshi Yadav (04.02.2004)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sanjay S. Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: V.D. Bajpai, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 125; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 397; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 401; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 98
Cases Referred:
Mammad Kunhi v. Rikhiya, 1978 Cr.LJ 1645
======
फौजदारी – भरण–पोषण – दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) की धाराएँ 98, 125, 397 और 401 – प्रत्युत्तरकर्ता (पत्नी) याचिकाकर्ता (पति) की पत्नी थी। प्रत्युत्तरकर्ता ने आरोप लगाया कि पति ने दहेज की मांग को लेकर उसके साथ मारपीट और उत्पीड़न किया। इस आधार पर उसने दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 125 के तहत भरण–पोषण हेतु आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया।
इसी बीच, याचिकाकर्ता (पति) द्वारा दायर धारा 98 के तहत आवेदन पर विचार करते हुए उप–विभागीय दण्डाधिकारी (एस.डी.एम.) ने यह पाया कि पत्नी अपने पति के साथ रहना नहीं चाहती, यहाँ तक कि पति द्वारा यह आश्वासन देने के बाद भी कि वह दहेज की मांग नहीं करेगा और न ही उसे प्रताड़ित करेगा।
न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट ने इन तथ्यों के आधार पर पत्नी द्वारा दायर धारा 125 के अंतर्गत भरण–पोषण का आवेदन खारिज कर दिया।
पत्नी ने उक्त आदेश के विरुद्ध अपील की, जिस पर अपीलीय न्यायालय ने मजिस्ट्रेट के आदेश को पलटते हुए यह माना कि पत्नी के पास अपने पति से अलग रहने का पर्याप्त कारण है, और उसने भरण–पोषण की राशि निर्धारित कर दी।
इसके विरुद्ध पति ने दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 397/401 के अंतर्गत वर्तमान पुनरीक्षण याचिका दायर की।
निर्णय:
यह तथ्य स्पष्ट था कि धारा 98 के तहत दायर आवेदन में एस.डी.एम. ने पाया था कि पत्नी अपने पति के साथ बिना कोई पर्याप्त कारण बताए रहना नहीं चाहती थी। दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 125(4) के अनुसार, यदि कोई पत्नी बिना उचित कारण अपने पति से अलग रहती है, तो वह भरण–पोषण पाने की अधिकारी नहीं होती।
वर्तमान मामले में पत्नी ने पति से अलग रहने का कोई पर्याप्त कारण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया। अतः वह धारा 125 के अंतर्गत भरण–पोषण पाने की पात्र नहीं है।
फलस्वरूप, अपीलीय न्यायालय का आदेश निरस्त किया गया तथा मजिस्ट्रेट का आदेश पुनः बहाल किया गया। याचिका स्वीकार की गई।
