125(4)crpc

Suraj Kumar (Querist) 28 January 2024 This query is : Resolved
Respected Sir,
My wife was filed 125 CRPC against me on year 2013- which was dismissed on default.

Then she file restoration application for above case- the court dismissed such application.

Again on year 2019, she again file 125 CRPC, where interim maintenance is allowed by court.

During cross examination of divorce case filed by me, she stated that "I will not reside with parent of my husband". The statement is duly recorded by court.

During pendency of 125 CRPC, can I file application u/s 125(4) CRPC refering judgement passes by Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Rivision number 172 of 2022 which was passed a week back ?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 29 January 2024
By bluntly stating that the Jharkhand high court has passed an order, it will not be possible for us to know what is the judgment that you are referring to.
instead you could have given the details of the judgment or at least the case name and the parties name or at least the name of the honorable justice.
It is not necessary that we should know everything what you know hence specify.

Suraj Kumar (Querist) 30 January 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.172 of 2022
------

Rudra Narayan Ray, son of late Dr. Prasanta Ray, resident of First Fidar
Road, Bankura, P.O., P.S. & District Bankura (West Bengal)
...... …... Petitioner
Versus
1. Piyali Ray Chatterjee, wife of Sri Rudra Narayan Ray, daughter of
Vishwaranjan Chatterjee, resident of Maluti, P.O. Maluti, P.S. Shikaripara,
District Dumka (Jharkhand)
2. Punya Prasoon Ray, minor son of Sri Rudra Narayan Ray and Smt. Piyali
Ray Chatterjee, represented through the opposite party No.2-Piyali Ray
Chatterjee, resident of Maluti, P.O. Maluti, P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumka
(Jharkhand) ….. …. Opposite Parties
-------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
--------
C.A.V. on: 04/01/2024 Pronounced on:22/01/2024

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 31 January 2024
What do you want to say by posting the citation details.
You have not produced the contents except the title details.

Suraj Kumar (Querist) 31 January 2024
28. In view of the disposal of point of determination No.1, the wife is
not entitled to any amount of maintenance. Herein, only the amount
awarded for maintenance to the son is to be considered whether the same is
proportionate in view of the income of the petitioner-Rudra Narayan Ray.
Herein, it would be pertinent to mention that in proceeding under Section 10of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. Admittedly, the wife has
also filed a maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. On behalf of the petitioner-husband in the Criminal Revision, the
photocopy of order dated 30.04.2021 passed in J. Misc. No.6030 of 2018, in
which, the proceeding under Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge
(Redesignated Court), Bankura has also directed the husband to pay the
maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.5000/- per
month for the minor son since the date of application i.e. 24.12.2018. In
view of this order, it is also evident that the petitioner Rudra Narayan Ray
has also been paying Rs.5000/- per month to the son in the proceeding under
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act in compliance of the order dated
30.04.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Redesignated
Court), Bankura. In view of the above, taking into consideration the
financial means of the petitioner Rudra Narayan Ray, it will be appropriate
herein to enhance the amount of maintenance for the son from
Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month. Accordingly, this point
of determination is also disposed of as stated hereinabove.
29. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Court
below needs interference and this Criminal Revision deserves to be partly
allowed.
30. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Criminal Revision
is hereby partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned
Court below is set aside up to the extent of awarding maintenance to the
wife; while the impugned judgment is modified increasing the maintenance
amount for minor son from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month.
31. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court
concerned through ‘FAX’
(Subhash Chand, J.)

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 01 February 2024
The judgment what you have produced here is irrelevant to your question.
You were asking opinion about filing a petition under section 125(4)cr.p.c.
The provision of law states:
Section 125(4) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(4)
No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Act 50 of 2001, Section 2 for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).] 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 judgment doesn't relate your query

P. Venu (Expert) 01 February 2024
Please post simple but comprehensive that a meaningful suggestion could be attempted.