Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on March 29 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held that a deserter wife not entitled to claim maintenance.

From Para 6,

6. As stated already, M.C.No.354 of 2017 has been tried along with G.O.(P) Nos.1621 of 2016 & 1334 of 2017. As per the common order, the guardianship of the child was given to the petitioner. A reading of the common order would show that the petitioner specifically contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason on 16.11.2015, abandoning their 2½-year-old child there and never returned thereafter. The respondent has admitted that she left the matrimonial home on that day. But her contention is that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live separately due to the ill-treatment of the petitioner. The parties let in evidence regarding these rival contentions. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the respondent left the matrimonial home leaving the child there without any reason. In paragraph 27 of the common order, there is a finding that even though the respondent has raised a contention that she left the petitioner due to ill-treatment, there is no evidence of any ill-treatment and there was not even a complaint by the respondent against the petitioner before any police. In paragraph 31 of the common order, there is a specific finding that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the definite intention to teach a lesson to the petitioner, and absolutely, there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner as alleged by the respondent. Thus, there is clear evidence on record to show that the respondent has been living separately since 16.11.2015 without any sufficient reason. That apart, O.P.No.1618 of 2016, filed by the petitioner seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, was allowed on those grounds.

From Para 7,

7. The primary object of marriage, while varying across cultures and beliefs, often encompasses forming a legal and social unit providing companionship and emotional support apart from procreation and raising of children. Marriage brings with it specific rights and liabilities for both husband and wife. Marriage involves a commitment to live together and fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the marital relationship. The primary
duty of parties in marriage is to live together and fulfil their marital obligations. The right to each other’s society, comfort and affection, often referred to as ‘consortium’ is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Withdrawal from society of the other would mean withdrawal from marital obligation by either spouse.

From Para 8,

8. A husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. Section 125 (1) (a) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (1) (a) of BNSS) provides maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, is not absolute. It is subject to sub-section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments us here.

Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025

Posted on January 30 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that,

From Para 45,

45. Despite concurrent findings of three courts as to the legitimacy of the Respondent, he and his mother maintain and proclaim to the world that the Appellant is his biological father. It must be underscored that theAppellant has maintained a consistent stance across all fora that he never had sexual relations with the Respondent’s mother. In fact, the dispute was assumed to have been put to rest in 2011, providing some relief to the Appellant, only to be reopened in 2015, once again making him face the brunt of the allegations. This constant pendulum-like state of affairs and unsubstantiated allegations must have, undoubtedly, had an adverse effect on the Appellant’s quality of life. In this backdrop, an order necessitating a DNA test based on mere allegations of adultery, would ultimately violate the Appellant’s right to dignity and privacy.

From Paras 69 and 70,

69. This convoluted case, spanning over two decades, has no doubt taken its toll on the parties involved and other relevant stakeholders. Given these
extenuating circumstances, at this stage, it must be closed for all intents and purposes.
70. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and set aside the Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 21.05.2018 and of the
Family Court dated 09.11.2015, with the following directions and conclusions:
i. Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’;
ii. The Munsiff Court and the Sub-Judge Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit, which dealt with the question of the legitimacy of the Respondent;
iii. The Family Court, Alappuzha erred in reopening the Maintenance Petition when the self-imposed condition was not satisfied;
iv. The impugned proceedings, initiated by the Respondent, are barred by the principle of res judicata;
v. The proceedings in MC No. No. 224/2007 before the Family Court, Alappuzha stand quashed;
vi. Any claim by the Respondent based upon the perceived relationship of paternity qua the Appellant, stands negated; and
vii. The Respondent is presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian.

Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025

Impugned Judgment:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e977c0b4653d048ca2bb2dc

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held that a deserter wife is not eligible for maintenance.

From Para 5-7,

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner voluntarily left the society of her husband and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of respondent No.1, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the petitioner voluntarily left the society of her husband and respondent No.1, never neglected or refused to maintain her. Except making averments in the petition, there is no proof filed by the petitioner, to show that her parents gave cash and other articles as dowry to respondent No.1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 discloses that the petitioner put conditions on respondent No.1 stating that she would join his society only if he would put up a basket shop by investing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, to give her seven (7) tulas of gold articles and to put up a separate family with her abandoning his parents. The trial Court further observed that respondent No.1 filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner and his consistent efforts to cohabit with her have gone in vain. Therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court opined that the petitioner failed to aver and prove that respondent No.1 neglected or refused to maintain her and that she is unable to maintain herself and thus, rendered the impugned judgment.
7. This Court vide order dated 02.07.2019, stated that no order directing respondent No.1, to pay interim maintenance can be granted, as the trial Court found that the petitioner herself left the company of her husband. Later, the matter underwent several adjournments.

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Index is here.

Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of composite APHC held that deserted wife will not get any maintenance.

From Para 5,

5) POINT: As per Section 125 Cr.P.C, any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate children whether married or not, or his father or mother, unable to maintain themselves is liable to provide maintenance to them. So far as wife is concerned, she will be entitled to maintenance only when her case does not fall under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, which reads thus:
“(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”
The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Bai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel1, has clarified this aspect stating that wife’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be denied only in the circumstances provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court refused to award maintenance to the 1st petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner has voluntarily come out of the matrimonial home but not due to the negligence or refusal of the respondent. Of course the Trial Court awarded maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month to each of the two children of the 1st petitioner. Hence the instant Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking maintenance to 1st petitioner on one hand and enhancement of the maintenance awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3.

From Para 8,

8) So the facts and evidence would clearly depict that 1st petitioner’s residing away from her husband is not supported by any plausible ground. Her attitude gives an inference that without lawful excuse she remained with her parents. In this factual situation, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as laid under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has rightly refused to grant maintenance to her. The wife who lives separately from the society of her husband without any lawful excuse does not deserve maintenance. It was so held in the case of Anil v. Smt. Sunita4. The decisions in K.Anjaiah Goud’s case (2 supra) and Naredla Sirisha’s case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners will not help the cause of 1st petitioner.

Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018

The Index is here.

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

It was held that there were no justifiable reasons for living separately.

From Para 13,

13) According to Respondents, the 1st Petitioner voluntarily left the company of the Respondent in the year 2014 and went to her parents house and refused to join him despite several attempts by Respondent. On the other hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that 1st Petitioner was necked out from matrimonial home on 27/05/2015 after she was severely beaten by the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the Criminal Case was filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner are presently residing at the house of parents of 1st Petitioner. The reason for disputes between P.W.1 and the Respondent are not entirely proved. Except for admission of pending Criminal case filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent under Section 498AIPC and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof produced on behalf of the Petitioners to prove that the Respondent was responsible for beating her and for demanding additional dowry. The initial burden in a Maintenance Case is on the Petitioner and only after proving the facts stated by her, the burden shifts onto the Respondent. In the instant case, as discussed above, none of the allegations levelled by the 1st Petitioner against the Respondent have been proved. Since the fact that the 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner are living separately from the Respondent is undisputed and justifiable reasons for living separately are not established by 1st Petitioner, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the 1st Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A DJ Court refused to interfere into a maintenance dismissal order for wife, as she voluntarily left the company of respondent.

From Para 11,

11. As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1 she admitted that after their marriage, her sister stayed along with them in Uppal Area, till her marriage and the respondent respected her sister. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that her mother sold Ac 1.00 land and gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent to settle the matter with Amala Jyothi. P.W.1 also admitted that she studied M.Sc., Computers and she left the house of her husband without informing him and she is not willing to join with the respondent to lead marital life. P.W.1 further admitted that her parents and elders went to Aswapuram for mediation, she filed D.V.C case and Sec.498-A IPC case against him. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, she did not choose to examine any witnesses or any documentary proof in support her version to prove that her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash to the respondent and also gave Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent and his father by selling Ac 1.00 land by her mother to settle the dispute with Amala Jyothi and the respondent was addicted to vices and failed to provide maintenance to her. Further as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 it appears that even the respondent is ready to maintain the petitioner, she is not willing to join the company of respondent to lead marital life. In such circumstances, in the absence of reliable evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent without sufficient cause as she voluntarily left the company of respondent. Hence, I see there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court.

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance was denied to wife, because she could not prove her allegations with cogent evidences.

From Para 14,

14) Broadly speaking there is no dispute about the legal status of 1st Petitioner as lawfully wedded wife of the Respondent and the legal status of the
2nd Petitioner as the son of the 1st Petitioner and the Respondent. Upon perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2, it is admitted fact that the marriage of 1st Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 13.06.2012. Admittedly P.W.1 and Respondent lived happily for one and 1/2 years i.e., only after few months after the birth of the 2nd Petitioner in the year 2013. Admittedly, P.W.1 began living away from her husband at her parents house when the 2nd Petitioner was aged 11 months old i.e., from March, 2014. There is variation in the evidence of the Petitioners and Respondent as to the exact reasons for separation of P.W.1 from R.W.1. Once it is admitted that P.W.1 is living separately from R.W.1, the burden of proving that she is living separately from R.W.1 for a reasonable cause is on the P.W.1. In support of the same the Petitioner made many allegations regarding the harassment meted out to her at the Respondent’s house during her stay with the Respondent. However, she also admitted that she lived happily for one and half years. Although she alleged that the Respondent did not visit hospital after the 2nd Petitioner was admitted in Hospital for Typhoid fever, P.W.2 admitted that the Respondents were present at the hospital and subsequently she returned back to Respondent’s home. Therefore all the allegations of P.W.1 prior to March, 2014 are not entirely proved. It is admitted by P.W.2 that no complaint was filed against the Respondent and his family with regard to dowry harassment and neither his daughter P.W.1 gave any such complaint. Although, P.W.1 stated in her chief-affidavit that on 19.02.2016 a Complaint was filed against the Respondent by her and the same was registered as Crime No.38/16 no certified copy of the complaint was filed by her and no exhibit was marked in proof of such complaint. The alleged complaint as per P.W.1 pertains to incident on 23.01.2016 when the Respondent and his parents visited P.W.1’s parents house and demanded her signature on divorce papers and pressed her neck and threatened her that they will kill her. Even otherwise the alleged F.I.R in existence relates to incident which occurred in 2016 i.e., two years after P.W.1 started living at her parents house. There are no specific dates mentioned by P.W.1 about the time when she returned to her parents home and the time when she tried to go back to the Respondent’s house with the help of mediators. Apart from admitted facts of P.W.1 that Respondent and herself lived happily for one and half years, she admitted that she does not want to go back to the Respondent even after the Respondent is willing to take her back. P.W.2 also deposed that he is not willing to send the 1st Petitioner to the Respondent’s fold and there were talks through elders by the Respondents but they have not acted or responded to the same. In such circumstances, it can be said that the 1st Petitioner is living separately at her parents house without any reasonable cause and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, point No.1 is answered partly in favour of the Respondent and against the 1st Petitioner.

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Index here.

Palla Shanthi Kiran Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 17 Jun 2020

Posted on March 14, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Chanmuniya case, Single-judge bench of AP High Court held that, in case of nullity of marriage under Section 11 or 12 of HMA, 125 CrPC cannot be invoked by knife.

Palla Shanthi Kiran Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 17 Jun 2020

Citations : [2020 ALT CRI 2 227], [2020 ALT 4 329]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f4398cd4653d009c1ff7665

https://www.legitquest.com/case/palla-shanthi-kiran-v-the-state-of-ap-and-ors/1C400E

The Lower Family Court dismissal order is here:

Palla Shanthi Kiran Vs Gadde Dileep on 29 Apr 2019

Maintenance Judgments

Posted on October 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance judgments by Enactment

Maintenance and Alimony Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 here.

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 here.

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] here.

Maintenance for Limited Time Period here.

Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce here.

Agreements against Public Policy are Void here.

A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha on how to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

Telangana High Court gave a wonderful order here, confirming that any order passed by Trial Courts, without calling for the Income affidavits is void ab initio and therefore is liable to set aside and matters will be remanded back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication.
Then another 2-judge bench of Apex Court has to Order re-circulation of above judgment in Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma, because the Trial Court Judges stopped following Supreme Court judgement here. Exactly after 3 long years!!!
There are other High Courts which set aside the trial Court orders for the singular reason that they did not follow Rajnesh Vs Neha. Check them out here.
- Calcutta HC in Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023
- Allahabad HC in Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023
- Telangana HC in Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023
- Kerala HC in Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023
- Patna HC in Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023
- Karnataka HC in Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023
- MP HC in Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024
  - It seems AP High Court is hell bent not to follow Rajnesh Vs Neha… and passed this perverse order here with a trivial reason. Karma!
- AP HC following my success story in Sreekanth Vs Nalini in Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024. Happy!!!
- AP HC in Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [My client’s case]
- Orissa HC in Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar Vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018

Posted on August 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madras has, in this judgment, held that no maintenance for knife who is duly employed and having sufficient means and source of income.

On bare perusal of the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st respondent, this Court is able to see that in the petition it is focused that the revision petitioner to be a person of sound financial capacity, besides holding valuable assets. It is obvious to see the petition primly projects the financial capacity of the revision petitioner rather than describing the respondent’s incapacity and inability to maintain her.

Legal tenet

The provision of maintenance provided under section 125 CrPC is neither penal nor compulsory, but is to be decided in the light of the financial capacity of the wife to maintain herself.

From Para 34,

Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its deep concern that though the legislation for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding hapless and helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances in which as in the case on hand the wife focus her husband as like that of an automated teller machine and the beneficial provisions of law is managed to be utilized as a tool of harassment.

Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar Vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 – Maintenance Denied

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Palla Shanthi Kiran Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 17 Jun 2020

Maintenance Judgments

Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar Vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018