Recently, in a ruling clarifying the scope of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a woman cannot claim maintenance from a man she accused and who was subsequently convicted for an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as the parties cannot be treated as husband and wife.
The case arose when a woman petitioned for interim maintenance for herself and her child, claiming she had been in a live-in relationship with the respondent for over a decade. She alleged that the respondent had initially expressed willingness to marry her and had cohabited with her, resulting in the birth of a child. When the respondent refused to solemnize the marriage and allegedly sought termination of her pregnancy, the petitioner filed a complaint leading to his conviction for rape.
The trial Magistrate had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 per month in favour of the petitioner and her child. The respondent challenged this order before the Revisional Court, which set aside the maintenance granted to the woman, while retaining the maintenance for the child.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed, “As the respondent was admittedly charged with an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of the petitioner, therefore, they cannot be treated as husband and wife for claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The relationship between the parties as husband and wife imposes an obligation on both to live together with each other as they were living as husband and wife and if they are living together and have lived years together, as such, then living together and cohabiting may not be an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The offence under Section 376 IPC would arise when such a relationship is missing.”
The Court further noted that the conviction and sentence of the respondent made it difficult to hold him liable for the petitioner’s maintenance. It concluded that the trial Magistrate had erred in granting interim maintenance under Sections 488/125 CrPC to the petitioner.
“After carefully going through the file and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, it is found that no illegality has been committed by the Revisional Court, while setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate so far as it pertains to granting of interim maintenance in favour of petitioner no.1. In my opinion, there is neither any irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua nor it can be said that passing of the order would cause miscarriage of justice,” Justice Koul held.
Case Title: ABC Vs. XYZ
Case No: CRM(M) No.1022/2022
Coram: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Surjeet Singh Andotra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Pariksha Parmar
Picture Source : twitter.com
