The Gauhati High Court recently ruled that a husband’s responsibility to pay maintenance to his wife, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), cannot be avoided by signing an agreement with his wife. This decision affirms that a wife’s right to receive maintenance is a statutory right.
Justice Rumi Kumari Phukan made this ruling while hearing an appeal filed by a wife. The appeal challenged a trial court’s order from June 26, 2019, which denied her maintenance. The trial court had based its decision on an agreement that stated her parents would cover her expenses while she stayed at their house.
The couple had married on March 10, 2016, but within three months, the wife claimed she was subjected to abuse and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. She then filed a criminal case against them. During the settlement, it was agreed that her parents would take care of her expenses while she lived with them.
The wife alleged that her husband never returned to bring her back to their matrimonial home. Seeking maintenance, she stated that she was still pursuing her undergraduate studies and had no means of income.
The husband, in his defense, accused his wife of leading an adulterous life, relying on her personal diary, which indicated she had feelings for another man before their marriage. He also pointed to the agreement they had signed.
However, the trial court rejected the husband’s adultery claim, noting that any feelings the wife had for another person occurred before their marriage, not after. Despite this, the trial court ruled against the wife, prompting her appeal to the High Court.
The Gauhati High Court found that the wife had been living with her parents since January 2017 and that the husband had not provided her with any maintenance, despite knowing she was studying and had no income. The court criticized the husband’s lack of explanation regarding why his wife had moved to her parental home and why the FIR was filed against him.
The court stated that the husband’s avoidance of his maintenance duty was unacceptable. It noted that the husband, a school teacher earning around ₹22,000 per month, had sufficient means to support his wife.
The High Court concluded that any agreement made to waive maintenance obligations is void under Section 125 CrPC. The court directed the trial court to reconsider the case, ordering both parties to appear before it on June 14, 2022, for further proceedings.
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==
