Wife Entitled To Maintenance Even If She Unilaterally Divorces Her Husband If She Is Unable To Maintain Herself: Calcutta HC

FACTS

• In the present case, the revisionist before the High Court is the wife who has unilaterally granted divorce to her husband.
• The husband has stated that the wife was found in a compromised and objectionable situation with some third party.
• She has been denied maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC on the grounds that she voluntarily separated herself from the company of the husband.

BACKGROUND

• The wife had initially prayed before Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC for herself and her minor daughter but the Judicial Magistrate refused her prayer and allowed maintenance for the daughter.
• She filed a revision before Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Murshidabad where maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC was again denied to her.
• The Sessions Court denied the maintenance on the grounds that the wife (petitioner before High Court) has herself unilaterally granted divorce to her husband and she cannot be considered destitute and wilfully neglected by the husband, which are the conditions under Section 125.
• Therefore, the petitioner had challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge before the Calcutta High Court.

OBSERVATION OF HIGH COURT

• The Single Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC to rectify the wrongs of the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court.
• The High Court aimed at the illegality of the impugned order and stated that the trial judge committed wrong when she refused maintenance to the divorced wife.
• The Court also observed that the petitioner was wronged again by the Additional Sessions Court when she was again refused maintenance on the ground that she was not dutiful to her husband as she was found in an objectionable situation with a third party by the villagers.

ORDER

• The High Court made it clear that the law was settled to the extent that a divorced wife will always be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC till her remarriage if she is unable to maintain herself.
• The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Sessions Court to issue a new order based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

What do you think of this case?