Case Title:
Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Deepika Sharma
Date of Judgement:
April 13, 2022
Bench:
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Parties:
Petitioner – Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma
Respondent – Smt. Deepika Sharma
SUBJECT
The criminal revision petition in the instant case had been filed by the petitioner u/s 397 / 401 read with Section 482, CrPC, to get the order of Maintenance u/s 125, CrPC, that was passed by the Additional Principal Judge in favor of the respondent, set aside. The order of maintenance was challenged on the grounds of adultery, cruelty, desertion without reason, and the capability of the respondent to maintain herself.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 125, CrPC –This section provides that an order of maintenance can be passed in favor of wives, children, and parents, if any person who is obliged to maintain them, has sufficient means, but neglects or refuses to maintain them. The word ‘wife’ in this Section includes a divorced woman, provided that she has not remarried. An order passed in favor of a wife under this Section can be set aside if it proved that she is living in adultery or that she has not sufficient cause to live separately from her husband.
Section 397, CrPC –This section provides that, to exercise its powers of revision, the Hon’ble High Court or any Sessions Judge can call for records of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situated in their jurisdiction.
Section 401, CrPC – It provides the provisions relating to the powers available to the High Court for revision.
Section 482, CrPC –This section provides the provisions relating to the inherent power of the High Courts. This Section re-emphasizes the powers of the High Courts to pass orders to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.
BRIEF FACTS
- The petitioner and the respondent solemnized their marriage on 09.04.2000. The marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born out of the wedlock of the parties.
- Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between the parties. So, several civil and criminal cases were filed by the petitioner and the respondent against each other.
- In one of those cases, an order of maintenance u/s 125, CrPCwas passed in favor of the respondent by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. That order has been assailed by the Petitioner by filing a Criminal Revision Petition in the present case.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether there is any illegality or error in the order of maintenance passed u/s 125, CrPC by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, in favor of the Respondent.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER
- It was argued by the Petitioner that the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 125, CrPC along with the material on record and other evidence in the case while passing his order granting maintenance to the respondent.
- Furthermore, it was argued that the Respondent had no “Sufficient Reason” to leave the company of the Petitioner and live separately. The Respondent has sufficient means to maintain herself as she is employed.
- Considering that the conduct of parties is relevant in criminal proceedings, it was contended that the learned Principal Judge failed to consider the criminal conduct of the respondent while passing an order in her favor.
- Another contention was that the Respondent had been living with a man (named Pankaj Arya) since 2014, as his wife. So, she committed adultery. In light of all these arguments, it was prayed that the order of maintenance was liable to be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- It was contended by the Respondent that there was no merit in the Petitioner’s contention that the Respondent had lived in adultery since there was no evidence on record to prove the same. The respondent was not even cross-examined as to the question of her alleged adulterous behavior.
- Furthermore, it was argued that the Petitioner did not take up the ground of adultery at the earlier stages of the case and this was an “afterthought”.
- It was contended that the petitioner was a commandant in BSF and had sufficient means (more than Rs. 2.5 lakhs salary per month) to pay the maintenance to the Respondent.
- Hence, it was ultimately prayed that the instant revision petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS:
- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) observed that the ground of cruelty taken by the Petitioner for challenging the order of maintenance could not stand as there were various precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts that lay down that even in cases where a divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty, maintenance could be granted to the wife.
- Furthermore, the Court observed that the ground of adultery taken by the Petitioner was rightly eliminated by the learned Additional Principal Judge, since the only evidence that was there to prove such contention was the testimony of the Petitioner’s son. The Court noted that the said witness could not be considered Independent since he was living with the Petitioner.
- Also, it was observed by the court that to follow the mandate of law given u/s 125 (4), the burden of proof for proving the adultery of the respondent would lie upon the petitioner. One act of adultery committed in isolation would not amount to ‘living in adultery’ as has been settled by codified law & judgments of various High Courts.
- Regarding the ground that the Respondent had ‘no sufficient cause’ to live separately from the Petitioner, the court observed that this ground was not valid since the petitioner had taken no such ground while filing for divorce.
CONCLUSION
The laws of maintenance are aimed to ensure that the wife, children, and parents of a capable man are not left to become destitute when they are unable to maintain themselves. So, a person liable to pay the maintenance cannot be allowed to escape his liability by abusing the process of law. Due to all these reasons, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge.So, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
