The Delhi High Court recently ruled that rejecting a maintenance application in a divorce petition does not prevent a wife from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice Yogesh Khanna made this observation while addressing a plea filed by a husband challenging an order related to a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC pending before the Family Court.
The husband’s counsel argued that both parties had agreed to certain terms, and the wife should not be allowed to disregard those terms and involve the petitioner in multiple cases. However, the High Court found that the husband had voluntarily agreed to pay the school fees for their children. This consent could not replace the maintenance he owed his wife.
The court noted that the husband was using the payment of school fees as an excuse to avoid paying maintenance to his wife. The Supreme Court order showed that the husband had willingly agreed to pay these fees.
The bench stated, “No fault can be found in her action since it is the petitioner who failed to comply with the consent order. Thus, he cannot claim the respondent must act under the consent order. The pendency of a divorce petition and the rejection of a maintenance application in such a petition do not prevent the respondent from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, considering its scope and ambit. The respondent cannot be left without maintenance just because the petitioner is paying school fees.”
Given these circumstances, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition.
Case Title: Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
