Husband Cannot Escape Maintenance Liability by Signing Agreement with Wife: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court recently ruled that a wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a statutory right, and a husband cannot escape this liability by entering into an agreement with his wife.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a wife who had been denied maintenance by a trial court on June 26, 2019. The trial court’s decision was based on the claim that the wife had signed an agreement with her husband stating that her expenses would be covered by her parents while she stayed at their house.
The couple married on March 10, 2016. Within three months of marriage, the wife alleged that she was subjected to torture by her husband and in-laws, with demands for dowry. She filed a criminal case, after which the husband and his parents tried to resolve the issue. As part of the resolution, the wife agreed that her parents would support her financially as long as she stayed at their house.
However, the husband did not return to take her back to their matrimonial home, prompting the wife to seek maintenance. She was pursuing her undergraduate studies at the time.
The husband, on the other hand, accused the wife of leading an adulterous life, relying on a personal diary where she had admitted to having feelings for another man before their marriage. He also cited the private agreement regarding her expenses.
The trial court rejected the husband’s adultery claim, stating that the feelings for another person occurred before the marriage, not during it. Nevertheless, the trial court ruled against the wife’s request for maintenance, which led her to appeal the decision in the High Court.
The High Court noted that the wife had been living at her parental home since January 2017 and that the husband had not provided any maintenance, even though she was a college student with no income. The court criticized the husband’s evasive denial of his responsibility, emphasizing his neglect in taking proper care of his wife.
The court also invalidated the private agreement between the wife and the husband, stating that it could not override the statutory maintenance rights under Section 125 CrPC.
The court found that the husband, a school teacher earning ₹22,000 per month, had failed to prove that he lacked sufficient means to support his wife. The court concluded that the husband had neglected his obligation to maintain his wife and set aside the trial court’s order.
The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the matter and scheduled a hearing for both parties to appear before it on June 14, 2022.
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==