Yashika Mehndiratta vs Amit Mehndiratta
2013 Latest Caselaw 1998 Del

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.M.C. 1697/2012

      YASHIKA MEHNDIRATTA                 ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. R.K. Tarun, Advocate

                          versus

      AMIT MEHNDIRATTA                              ..... Respondent
                  Through:             Counsel for respondent.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

                    ORDER

% 02.05.2013

1. By this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) the petitioner wife seeks to

challenge the order dated 4th June 2010 whereby the learned Addl.

Principal Judge, Family Court declined to grant interim maintenance in

favour of the petitioner - wife.

2. Assailing the said order, Mr. R. K. Tarun, learned counsel for the

petitioner - wife submits that it is a statutory right of the wife to claim

maintenance from her husband and such a right cannot be denied to her

even where she has left the matrimonial home without there being any

neglect on the part of the husband and also even where the wife starts

residing separately under some mutual arrangement. Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the denial of interim maintenance even in such

circumstances is against the public policy and the husband cannot take

shelter under sub-clause (4) of Section 125 of Cr. P. C. to deny

maintenance to his wife merely because she has refused to join the

company of the husband.

3. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the learned trial court

has committed a grave error and illegality by not granting an opportunity

to the petitioner to lead evidence and has decided the petition filed under

Section 125 of Cr. P.C finally at an interim stage.

4. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that under Explanation (b)

of Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., the expression 'wife' has been defined to

include a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce

from, her husband and has not re-married and so far as the present case

is concerned, the petitioner cannot be put on a worse footing than the

divorced wife.

5. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is at least

entitled to the grant of maintenance till 30th May 2012 i.e. the date when

she got re-married.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment

reported in RanjitKaur v. Pavittar Singh, 1992 Cri. L. J. 262; a decision

of this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 544/2011 titled as AmitGuglani vs.

PushpaGuglani, rendered on 21st September 2011, etc. in support of the

above contentions.

7. During the course of hearing the present petition, learned counsel

for petitioner has also apprised this Court that the marriage between the

parties has already been dissolved by judgment and decree dated 4 th June

2010 passed under Section 13B(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Learned counsel for petitioner further informed that after grant of the

said decree, the petitioner has re-married on 30th May 2012 and the

respondent also got re-married on 8th July 2012.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. The petitioner in the present case has been denied the interim

maintenance by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court on the

ground that the petitioner wife, without any sufficient cause,was herself

not ready and willing to live with her husband at the matrimonial home.

10. On perusal of the impugned order, it has been recorded by the

learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court that in camera proceedings

before Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, learned Session Judge pertaining to the

case of the petitioner u/s 406/498A/34 IPC against the respondent, the

petitioner herself admitted that she had no problem in staying with her

husband. She also informed the court that she was living happily with

her husband during the period when she was asked to join his company

by the directions of the court. The petitioner further disclosed to the

court that she was ready and willing to join the company of her husband

but she could not stand the pressure put forth by her parents who did not

want her to join her matrimonial home. She also informed the court that

she had no courage to go against the wishes of her parents. Impugned

order further records the observations of the Sessions court wherein the

court found that the father of the petitioner was reluctant in sending the

petitioner to her matrimonial home and the mother of the petitioner was

not at all ready and in fact straightaway stated that she would not allow

her daughter to join her matrimonial home at any cost. Taking note of

the aforesaid candid statements made by the petitioner in camera

proceedings before the court of Mr.SanjivAggarwal, the learned Addl.

Principal Judge, Family Court concluded that as the petitioner did not

join the matrimonial home under the pressure of her parents, she shall

not be entitled to grant of any maintenance and granted maintenance in

favour of the child only.

11. According to sub-section (4) of the Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.,

the wife would not be entitled to grant of maintenance/ interim-

maintenance in three situations i.e. (a) if she is living in adultery; or (b)

if without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or

(c) if both the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent.

12. Undoubtedly, Section 125 contained in Chapter IX of Cr. P.C. is a

social piece of legislation mainly enacted to provide a speedy remedy to

the women and children for the grant of maintenance so that they are not

forced to lead a life of destitute during the lifetime of husband/father

who are statutorily liable to maintain them. Also, proceedings under

Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. are summary proceedings so that no delay

takes place in providing such remedy to the wife and the children. Any

neglect on part of the husband to maintain his wife and children is

sufficient to grant maintenance in favour of the wife and the children. If

the wife lives separately from the husband due to the circumstances

created by the husband himself, then the husband would not be obviated

from his liability of paying maintenance towardshis wife on the ground

that the wife refused to live with him. However, such position differs in

cases where the wife herself leaves the company of her husband without

there being any justifiable grounds, as the wife is expected to live with

her husband and discharge her matrimonial obligations while entering

into the pious relationship of marriage and cannot claim the amount of

maintenance from her husband by living separately without there being

any sufficient reasons for such separate living. SeeSatya Devi v.

Gurdeep Singh, 1987 (2) Crimes 672(J&K), Anil Kumar Mamgain v.

State of Uttaranchal, 2007 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 725 (Uttra).

13. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner herself has admitted

that she was always ready and willing to join the company of her

husband and stay in the matrimonial home but was pressurized by her

parents to live with them at her parental house and was not in a position

to muster the courage to defy the wishes of her parents. With such

admissions on the part of the petitioner, it has become quite evident that

the Respondent - husband cannot be blamed at all for the separate living

of his wife as he was always ready and willing to live with her.

14. The case of the petitioner is, thus, squarely covered under the sub-

clause (4) of Section 125 of Cr. P.C. and the petitioner has been rightly

denied any amount of maintenance from the respondent. Also, in view of

the aforesaid admissions made by the petitioner before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, the judgments cited by counsel for the

petitioner will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. Finding no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 4th

June 2010, the petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

16. It is ordered accordingly.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MAY 02, 2013 pkb