Important Judgments on Section 125 Cr.P.C

Important Judgments on Section 125 Cr.P.C

Important Judgments on  Section 125 Cr.P.C

  • If wife deserts husband then no maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C . Archana Gupta vs. Rajeev Gupta– Uttarakhand HC-Decided on 18 November 2009- Criminal Revision No. 201 Of 2006.
  • Recoveries under 125(3) Cr.P.C are independent of 127, thus Husband cannot be directed to deposit the arrear as condition to proceed with his application of 127. Ashok Yeshwant Samant vs Smt. Suparna Ashok Samant– Bombay HC- Decided on 27 July 1990. Equivalent Citation-1991 (1) BomCR 383, (1990) 92 BOMLR 434, 1991 CriLJ 766, II (1991) DMC 132.
  • Domestic violence and Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be filed on the same set of allegations and cause of action. Prakash vs Deepa– MADRAS HIGH COURT- MADURAI BENCH – Decided on 28 July 2015-CRL.RC. (MD)No.453 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014.
  • For determination of the maintenance amount payable to her, separate income of the wife can be taken into account. Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi- Supreme Court- Decided on 17 October 1974- Equivalent Citation -1975 AIR 83, 1975 SCR (2) 483.
  • No maintenance for deserting wife under section 125 Cr.P.C., not even entitled after divorce. Bhagwan Raoji Dale vs Sushma Alias Nanda Bhagwan Dale-Bombay HC-Decided on 17 April 1998-Equivalent Citation-1999 (5) BomCR 851, I (1999) DMC 168.
  • Rajasthan High Court held no maintenance for a deserting wife. Bheekha Ram vs Goma Devi And Ors– Rajasthan HC- Decided on 22.01.1999- Equivalent Citation-1999 WLC Raj UC 260, I (2000) DMC 76.
  • House Loan EMI to be considered while granting interim maintenance. Bhushan Kumar Meen vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur– Supreme Court- Decided on 28.04.2009- Equivalent Citation-(2010) 15 SCC 372.
  • Wife Working, taking unnecessary adjournments, Quashed under Cr.P.C 482. Capt Dr Hamesh Kumar Vs Dr Nisha Sahi– Punjab-Haryana HC- Decided on 20 July 1993- Equivalent Citation-CURLJ-1993-2- 367, LAWS(P&H)- 1993-7-125.
  • Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai– Supreme Court-Decided on 27 November 2007- Equivalent Citation-(2008) 2 SCC 316.
  • Relationship in the nature of marriage for Domestic Violence Act -Live-In-Relationship. Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal– Supreme Court-Decided on 21 October 2010- Equivalent Citation- AIR (SC)-2011-0- 479, SCC-2010-10-469, ALLSCR-2010-0-2639.
  • Wife who leaves matrimonial home without any justification is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Deb Narayan Halder vs Anushree Halder– Supreme Court- Decided on 26 August 2003- Equivalent Citation-(2003) 11 SCC 303.
  • Wife cannot seek the same relief from Judicial Magistrate Court when matter is pending in Civil Court. Ramanathan vs Revathy– Madras HC- Decided on 16 March 1989- Equivalent Citation-1989 Crl.LJ 2037 (1).
  • If maintenance was awarded in two different sections then it has to be offset. Gian Chand vs Dilpreet Kaur– Punjab-Haryana HC- Decided on 23 February 2010- Civil Revision No. 2427 of 2009.
  • Wife after concealing the material facts about her own employment and agreement with husband took ex-parte order in her favour, so contempt and fine. Gurbinder Singh vs Manjit Kaur– Delhi HC- Decided on 25 January 2010- Cas(C) 482 of 2008.
  • Wife should prove that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. Haunsabai vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar-Karnataka HC- Decided on 13 February 1980- Equivalent Citation-1981 CriLJ 110, ILR 1980 KAR 612, 1980 (2) KarLJ 158.
  • Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are civil in nature, Divorce Muslim Wife is eligible for Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Iqbal Bano vs State Of U.P. And Anr– Supreme Court- Decided on 05 June 2007- Equivalent Citation- AIR 2007 SC 2215.
  • Wife lied related to her working status hence Perjury allowed. Jagdish Prasad vs State & Others-Delhi HC- Decided on 23 March 2009-CRL.M.C. 1130/2008 & CRL.M.A.4231/2008.
  • Maximum period for which Wife can claim maintenance under the procedure contemplated under S. 125(3) is one year. Jangam Srinivasa Rao vs Jangam Rajeswari– Andhra HC- Decided on 03 March 1989- Equivalent Citation-1990 CriLJ 2506.
  • Qualified wife sitting idle and claiming maint. From husband should go and do work for society free of charge as long as she is claiming maintenance on account of being unemployed. Kavita Prasad vs Ram Ashray Prasad– Delhi HC- Decided on 01 October 2008- CM(M) No. 1153 of 2008.
  • Before the wife can claim maintenance she must show that she is unable to maintain herself and that her husband has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain. Warrant for recovery of maintenance amount can’t be initiated straightaway before issuing a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines. There has to be separate sentencing upon separate and fresh application after considering the matter for each month or part thereof for which maintenance remains unpaid. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can there be a continuous mechanical remand. Laljee Yadav vs The State of Bihar-Patna HC- Decided on16 September 2001- Equivalent Citation-2011 (4) PLJR 248.
  • Different Maximum quantum of maintenance fixed by different States by way of State amendments held to be unconstitutional. Manoj Yadav vs Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav & Ors -Supreme Court- Decided on11 January 2011-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107 OF 2011 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No(s).6568 of 2009).
  • Couple was living separately by mutual consent, hence maintenance denied. Marimuthu vs Janaki– Madras HC- Decided on 22 February 2008-Crl.R.C.No.1491 OF 2005.
  • Wife was living at her Maternal Uncle’s place and refused to return. As it is proved that wife wants to reside separately maintenance not granted to her. Meena Dinesh Parmar vs Dinesh Hastimal Parmar– Bombay HC- Decided on 04 February 2005. Equivalent Citation- AIR 2005 Bom 298, 2005 (4) Bom CR 672, 2005 (2) MhLj 305.
  • Wife is not entitled for maintenance prior to divorce on desertion and cruelty but after divorce wife can seek maintenance. Rohtash Singh vs Ramendri And Ors– Supreme Court- Decided on 02 March 2000- Equivalent Citation-2000 (2) SCR 58.
  • In normal circumstances the maintenance must be granted from the date of the order. Samaydin vs State of UP– Allahabad HC- Decided on 04 January 2001- Equivalent Citation- LAWS (ALL)-2001-1-47.
  • If wife cannot prove cruelty, then she is not entitled for maintenance under CRPC 125. Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale vs Khristina Sanjay Bhosale– Bombay HC- Decided on 08 April 2008- Equivalent Citation-2008 Cri.L.J.(NOC) 833 (BOM.).
  • Wife declaring completely incorrect facts and also suppressing the material aspect was prosecuted for perjury. Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya vs State of Gujarat- Gujarat HC- Decided on 20 October 2016- Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 7666 of 2016.
  • Regardless of whether the spouse is competent to earn or whether she is really earning are two distinct requirements.-Judgements against Husband. Shailja vs KhobbannaSupreme Court– Decided on 18 January 2017-Equivalent Citation-(2018) 12 SCC 199.
  • Wife wants to reside separately without sufficient cause, hence Maintenance denied. Shiv Kumar Yadav vs Santoshii Yadav– Chattisgarh HC- Decided on 04 February 2004- Criminal Revision No.544 of 2003.
  • Maintenance order to be paid from the date of order unless explicitly mentioned to pay from date of application. Sudha Devi & Another vs State of U.P. & Another– Allahabad HC- Decided on 02 April 2014- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1387 of 2006.
  • Judgement against Husband-Cr.P.C 125 and Hindu Marriage Act’s section 25 is applicable for voidable Marriage. T K Surendran Vs P.Najima Bindu– Kerala HC- Decided on 03 February 2012- Equivalent Citation- DMC 2012 (249).
  • Upon non-payment of arrears, arrest cannot be ordered simply just because wife has asked for, the Court has to be satisfied that Husband despite having sufficient means had wilfully evaded the payment of arrears of maintenance. B.Kamalanathan vs K.Jayasree– Madras HC- Decided on 29 April 2016- Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.4357 of 2016.
  • Mutual Divorced wife eligible for Maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. Vanamala vs Shri H.M.Ranganatha Bhatta– Supreme Court- Decided on 27 July 1995- Equivalent Citation-1995 SCC (5) 299, JT 1995 (5) 670.
  • Working women not eligible for Maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. Vikas Jain vs Deepali Jain– Uttarakhand HC- Decided on 25 October 2010- First Appeal No.12 of 2008.
  • Wife took mutual consent divorce then filed 125, but Wife is a proprietor of a Boutique and she hides this fact, hence maintenance denied due to unclean hands. Vinita Devangan v. Rakesh Kumar Devangan– Chattisgarh HC- Decided on 01 May 2009- Equivalent Citation-2010(1) HLR 604, 2010(1) AICLR 508, 2009(3) Crimes 57, 2009(2) DMC 833.
  • Personal Law to be considered while deciding Cr.P.C 125. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav– Supreme Court- Decided on 27.01.1988- Equivalent Citation-1988 SCR (2) 809, 1988 AIR 644.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgments are posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printouts from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

Also Read:-Important Judgement on 498A I.P.C

Feel free to Share this

Akansha Jain

"Akansha Jain is a practicing lawyer at Rajasthan High Court she has completed his law from University of Rajasthan."