Section 125 CrPC Proceedings Are Summary In Nature; Intended To Prevent Vagrancy: Jharkhand High Court Criticizes Delay In Deciding Maintenance Application

The High Court was considering the revision petitions filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance while the husband sought the quashing of the order of the Family Court.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “It is strange, that a petition under section 125 Cr.PC was filed in the year 2015 which has been decided in the year 2023 which prima facie suggest that in the case in hand the proceeding before the learned Family Court was conducted without being alive to the objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act and the spirit of the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.”

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of decisions has observed that, the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C are of summary nature and are intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Section 125 Cr.PC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provisions so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her”, it added.

Advocate Nikhil Ranjan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Achinto Sen represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the petitioner was that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was solemnised in the year 1985 according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the husband completed his MBBS degree and was doing an internship, and the wife completed her B.Ed course. The husband secured a Government job, took a leave and went to Saudi Arabia along with his wife and stayed there for six years. The relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial, and thereafter, the problems started. It was submitted that the cause of action had arisen in the year 2006 when the wife had to leave the house of her husband, and it continued till the filing of the petition.

Disputes arose, and the wife took the matter to the Mahila Aayog, Ranchi, for maintenance against the opposite party/ husband, but the husband did not appeal. It was in this background that the wife filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the Family Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the wife had brought the evidence before the Family Court, Ranchi, to the effect that her husband has an income of Rs 3 to 4 lakh per month as he is a medical practitioner and a famous neurophysician at Patna. However, she was not able to bring sufficient cogent and reliable evidence on the basis of which the court was not able to appreciate that fact.

The Bench explained, “The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basis maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into place, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the divorce had been granted and the husband was directed to pay Rs 20 lakh as permanent alimony and pay the same by way of Demand Draft. The same had been done. “Considering the legal provision of Section 125 Cr.PC and the trauma of the wife and further considering the income of the husband, the learned court has already allowed Rs.24,000/- per month in favour of wife. It appears that the learned court has rightly allowed the said amount in favour of the wife, and in view above, that order is maintained”, the Bench held while dismissing both the revision petitions of the husband and the wife.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:2667)

Click here to read/download Order