CASE ANALYSIS - Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahato SLP (Crl.) No. - 5896/2024
★Court- Supreme Court of India
★Case Title- Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahato SLP (Crl.) No. - 5896/2024.
Rina Kumari -----------------Appellant
Dinesh Kumar Mahato -----Respondent
★Case Type- Maintenance under 125 Crpc.
★Moot Question-
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugalrights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home?
★Case Summary -
*The above intriguing question was answered in the affirmative by a learned Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, vide order dated 04.08.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 440 of 2022.
*The appellant, Reena, and respondent No. 1, Dinesh Kumar Mahto , were married on 01.05.2014.
*They parted ways in August, 2015, and Reena started living at her parental
home.
*Original (MTS) Suit No. 495 of 2018 was instituted by Dinesh on 20.07.2018 before the Family Court, Ranchi, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.
*Reena contested the suit by filing her written statement on 25.04.2019.
*Dinesh claimed that Reena left the matrimonial home on 21.08.2015 and did not return thereafter.
*According to Dinesh, attempts were made during August and October, 2017, to bring her back but she refused to come.
*On the contrary, Reena asserted that she was subjected to torture and mental agony by Dinesh, who demanded ₹5 lakh to purchase a four-wheeler.
*Rina alleged that Dinesh had extramarital
relations. Further, she stated that she suffered a miscarriage on 28.01.2015 but Dinesh did not even come to see her from his workplace at Ranchi and it was her brother who took her to Dhanbad for medical care.
*Rina claimed that it was Dinesh who persuaded her to go to her parental home in August, 2015, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and he never truly tried to bring her back thereafter.
*Rina stated that she was ready to return to her matrimonial home if Dinesh did not demand money to purchase a Car and if she was not ill-treated by him and his family members.
*Her further conditions were that she should be allowed to use the washroom/toilet in the house, as she was not allowed to do so earlier, and she should also be allowed to use an LPG stove to prepare food, as she had to do so by using wood and coal hitherto.
*Reena, despite filing the above written statement, failed to appear thereafter before the Ranchi Family Court.
*By judgment dated 23.04.2022, the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi, decreed Dinesh’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights.Therein, it was noted that Dinesh had attempted to bring his wife back only once but, relying on the evidence of his witnesses, the Family Court concluded that he wanted to live with her as husband and wife.
*As no evidence was adduced by Reena, the Family Court held against her as regards her allegation that Dinesh demanded ₹5 lakh to purchase a car and her allegation of ill treatment and torture by him and his family members.
*Opining that there must be something more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life for a wife to withdraw from the society of her husband, the
Family Court held in Dinesh’s favour. He was, however, directed to ensure the respect and dignity of his wife and to see that her conditions with regard to cooking and toilet facilities were complied with.
*Reena was directed to resume conjugal life with Dinesh within two months. Admittedly, Reena did not abide by this decree.
*Significantly, in the meanwhile, on 10.08.2018, Reena lodged a complaint under Section 498A IPC against Dinesh, in C.P. Case No.3270 of 2018. As a result of this, he was sent to prison and was consequently suspended from service for some time. The case is stated to be pending.
*Thereafter, on 03.08.2019, Reena instituted Original Maintenance Case No. 454 of 2019 against Dinesh seeking
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
*Therein, the Family Court noted Dinesh’s stand that he was ready and willing to keep
Reena with full dignity but held, on the evidence adduced, that she was entitled to maintenance.
*The Family Court held that Dinesh, despite having sufficient means, had
neglected to maintain his wife, who was unable make ends meet on her own.
*The petition was accordingly allowed and Dinesh was directed to pay 10,000/- per month to Reena towards maintenance.
*Such maintenance was held payable from the date of the application, i.e.,03.08.2019, and the arrears were directed to be paid within two months.
*Challenging this order, Dinesh filed Criminal Revision No. 440of 2022 before the Jharkhand High Court. A learned Judge allowed therevision by the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2023. Therein, the learned Judge noted that Reena, who deposed as PW-1, was not even cross-examined by Dinesh.
*Similarly, the other two witnesses who
appeared on her behalf were also not subjected to cross-examination. In
her deposition, Reena asserted that she was not working and this was confirmed by her brother, Dilip Kumar Mahato (PW-3), who stated that she was completely dependent upon him.
*Dinesh, in his own cross-examination, denied that it was due to his assault that his wife suffered a miscarriage. He also denied that he had demanded 5 lakh in dowry.
*It was submitted on behalf of
Dinesh, that he was ready to pay 5,000/- per month to Reena, but not ₹ 5000 from the date of filing of the maintenance petition, as he was suspended from service during that period owing to his being in judicial custody in relation to the Section 498A IPC case instituted by her.
*The learned Judge, however, noted that there was a specific finding in the judgment dated 23.04.2022 in Original (MTS) Suit No. 495 of 2018 that Reena had
withdrawn from her husband’s society without reasonable excuse and that she had not returned to the matrimonial home despite the said decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which she had not even chosen to challenge by way of appeal.
*The learned Judge, therefore, reasoned
that Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. would come to Dinesh’s aid and, in consequence, Reena would not be entitled to maintenance. Hence, the learned Judge allowed the revision.
★Case Laws Used -
1. Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 -
*The Supreme Court of India held that object of maintenance is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitute of a deserted wife,by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy.
*Supreme court held section 125 Cr.PC is a measure of social justice.
2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others (2015) 6 SCC 353
*Supreme Court of India observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman, who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision.
*Supreme Court further cautioned that, in a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot be permitted to take subterfuge to deprive the wife of the benefits of living with dignity and there could be no escape route, unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on legally permissible grounds.
3. Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another (2014) 1 SCC 188
*Supreme Court held that the provision of maintenance aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual.
4. Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCc 324
*Supreme Court emphasized that maintenance laws were enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
5. Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705
*Supreme Court noted that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her
matrimonial home. It was further observed that, as per law, she is entitled to lead life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.
6. K. Narayana Rao vs. Bhagyalakshmi 1983 SCC Online Kar 190
*The Karnataka High Court observed that the Court dealing with a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to carefully examine and take into consideration the decree for restitution of conjugal rights which has not been complied with by the wife but it would not be bound by all the findings therein,
including findings on questions, such as, whether the wife withdrew from
the society of the husband; desertion on her part; or her leading an adulterous life.
*Reference was made to Fakruddin Shamsuddin Saiyed vs. Bai Jenab AIR 1944 Bom 11 , wherein the Bombay High Court had held that the Magistrate should not ‘surrender his own discretion’ simply because the husband was armed with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
7. Sampuran Singh vs. Gurdev Kaur and another Criminal Revision No. 1562 of 1983
*ThePunjab & Haryana High Court observed that a wife can still claim
maintenance in the presence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights
if the conduct of the husband is such that it obstructs her from obeying
the decree.
8. Amina Mohammedali Khoja vs. Mohammedali Ramjanali Khoja and another 19855 SCC Online Bom 99
*The Bombay High Court noted that an order of maintenance can always be passed in favour of a wife even if her
husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, unless it is
established that she willfully deserted her husband and was not willing to
stay with him without reasonable cause or sufficient reason.
9. Kavungal Kooppakkattu Zeenath vs. Mundakkattu SulfikerAli 2008 SCC Online Ker 78
*The Kerala High Court noted that the expression used in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is ‘refusal’ and not ‘failure’ to live with the
husband and that there is evidently some difference between the two.
*It was held that ‘failure’ would mean not doing something that one is expected to do but ‘refusal’ would mean saying or showing that one would not do or accept something which is offered. In effect, if a
husband says he is willing to do something for the wife but she states or shows that she does not want or accept that something which is offered to her, then only there is refusal.
10. Subal Das vs. Mousumi Saha (Das) and another 2017 SCC Online Tri 275
*The Tripura High Court held that a wife who refuses to comply with a decree
for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be deprived of maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
*It was observed that it would be
incongruent to assume that a wife against whom a decree for restitution
has been passed is disentitled to maintenance while a wife who has
been divorced can still claim the same.
11. Babita vs. Munna Lal 2022 SCC Online Del 4933
*The Delhi High Court opined that an
ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights would not automatically put an end to the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
12. Shri Mudassir vs. Shirin and others
*The Bombay High Court noted that mere readiness and willingness on the part of the husband to cohabit with the wife would not be sufficient to absolve him of the liability to pay maintenance, by projecting that the wife left his company without sufficient reason. It was held that if the grounds justified the wife and children staying away from the husband, Section
125(4) Cr.P.C. would have no application.
13. Smt. S.R. Ashwini vs. G. Harish NC:2024:KHC:14466
* The Karnataka High Court held that there is nothing in law to bar the grant of
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even if a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is secured by the husband.
★Court's Verdict -
*Dinesh, therefore, sought to protect himself from a claim by Reena for
maintenance by projecting the disobeyed restitution decree as a defence and as long as she did not attain the status of a divorced wife, that protection would endure to his benefit.
*This stalemate of sorts created by
Dinesh clearly reflects his lack of bonafides and demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility towards his wife, Reena.
*These factors, taken cumulatively, clearly manifest that Reena had more than
sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her husband, Dinesh,and her refusal to live with him, notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, therefore, cannot be held against her.
*In consequence, the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. was not
attracted and the High Court erred grievously in applying the same and
holding that Reena was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court.
*The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 04.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 440 of 2022.
*In consequence, the order dated
15.02.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Dhanbad, in Original Maintenance Case No. 454 of 2019 shall stand restored.
*In furtherance thereof, Dinesh,respondent No. 1 herein, shall pay maintenance @ 10,000/- per month to Reena, the appellant, on or before the 10th day of each calendar month.
*Such maintenance would be
payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application, i.e.,
03.08.2019.
*Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by Dinesh in three equal installments, i.e., the first instalment by 30.04.2025, the second instalment by 31.08.2025 and the third and final instalment by 31.12.2025.
*In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.
CJI.(SANJIV KHANNA)
J.(SANJAY KUMAR)
Post a Comment