Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125 — Maintenance to wife — Second marriage of parties — Allegation of dowry demand and cruelty — Divorce proceedings before ‘Court of Kazi’ and ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’ — Family Court denying maintenance to wife on ground that she left matrimonial home without sufficient cause — High Court affirming — Correctness of.
Appellant-wife married respondent no.2 according to Islamic customs — Both parties in second marriage — Two children born — Respondent filed divorce suit before ‘Court of Kazi’ dismissed on compromise (22.11.2005) — Subsequently filed divorce suit before ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’ — Talaqnama dated 22.01.2009 prepared — Appellant filed petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and children — Family Court awarded maintenance to children but rejected wife’s claim holding she left matrimonial home due to her conduct — High Court dismissed revision —
Held: Family Court’s reasoning that being a second marriage there could be no possibility of dowry demand as husband would be “trying to rehabilitate his house” is unknown to the canons of law and based on mere conjecture and surmise — Court cannot presume absence of dowry demand merely because marriage was second for both parties — [Para 14]
Further, Family Court relied on compromise deed dated 22.11.2005 to hold that wife admitted her mistake — On perusal, compromise deed recorded no such admission — It merely stated parties agreed to live together and not give occasion for complaint — Very basis for rejecting maintenance is ex facie unsustainable — High Court merely affirmed erroneous reasoning — [Para 15]
Maintenance could not have been denied to appellant-wife under prevailing circumstances — Respondent directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to appellant — [Para 16, 18]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125(2) — Date from which maintenance payable — Whether from date of order or date of application — Beneficial legislation — Uniformity in approach.
Family Court directed maintenance payable from date of order — Appellant contended it should be from date of application —
Held: Though Section 125(2) empowers Court to grant maintenance from date of order, ordinarily maintenance should be awarded from date of application — Section 125 is beneficial legislation to prevent destitution — Delay in judicial process should not disadvantage applicant — Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha — Maintenance directed from date of filing of application before Family Court — [Paras 17, 18]
Maintenance awarded to daughter payable only till she attained majority — Entire arrears to be deposited within four months — [Para 18]
Judicial Fora — Informal justice delivery systems — ‘Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, ‘Sharia Court’ — Legal status — Recognition in law.
Divorce proceedings conducted before ‘Court of Kazi’ and ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’ —
Held: Such bodies, by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law — Any declaration/decision by such bodies is not binding and unenforceable by coercive process — Only when affected parties voluntarily accept and act upon such decision, and such action does not conflict with law, may it operate inter se parties — Not binding on third parties — Position clarified following Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India — [Para 23]
Criminal Procedure — Section 125 CrPC — Social justice — Purposive interpretation — Protection of marginalised spouse — Financial incapacity of wife.
Section 125 enacted to protect wife and children from destitution and vagrancy — Courts must advance cause of social justice — Financial constraints of dependent spouse justify maintenance from date of application — [Paras 17–18]
Result
Order of Family Court dated 23.04.2010 and Judgment of High Court dated 03.08.2018 set aside — Appeal disposed of — No order as to costs — [Para 19]
No comments:
Post a Comment