In a significant ruling that underscores the procedural necessities under Indian criminal law, the Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Manjive Shukla, ordered a stay on an interim maintenance order in the Case No. 141 of 2019. The case, a criminal revision petition registered as CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6106 of 2023, brings forward complex legal issues surrounding Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and its provisions regarding maintenance in cases involving allegations of adultery.
Background of the Case
The case concerns a dispute between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 over maintenance. The Family Court in Firozabad had previously awarded interim maintenance of ₹7,000 to the wife (Opposite Party No. 2) as per Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Rishabh Agarwal, challenged this order, citing allegations of adultery, arguing that under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., a wife “living in adultery” is ineligible for maintenance.
The petitioner’s argument emphasized that the court’s obligation under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is to conclusively determine whether adultery is indeed involved before awarding interim or final maintenance. In this context, the petitioner challenged the order, asserting that the Family Court had bypassed the procedural requirement to address the adultery allegation before granting maintenance.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Right to Maintenance and Adultery Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.: Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. provides a framework for maintenance to wives, children, and parents unable to support themselves. Section 125(4) specifically restricts the entitlement of a wife to maintenance if she is “living in adultery.” This raises the legal question of whether an interim maintenance order can be granted without a preliminary inquiry into allegations of adultery.
2. Procedural Mandate for Courts: The judgment brought attention to the procedural requirement under Section 125(4), mandating that courts ascertain allegations like adultery before making a ruling on maintenance. Justice Shukla observed that a “categorical finding” on this issue is crucial before awarding interim relief.
3. Judicial Oversight in Interim Maintenance Orders: The petitioner’s counsel, Rishabh Agarwal, contended that the Family Court’s failure to address the adultery allegation violated the procedural fairness required by law. This emphasizes the importance of due diligence in judicial processes where claims of moral and marital obligations are assessed.
Key Observations by the Court
The Allahabad High Court, recognizing the importance of procedural adherence, made critical observations in its interim order. Justice Shukla noted:
“Once there is a categorical allegation of adultery against the wife, the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue.”
The Court emphasized that ignoring this process violates the legislative intent behind Section 125(4), which aims to ensure that maintenance is not awarded under circumstances where the wife’s entitlement is legally barred. Therefore, the Family Court’s April 13, 2023, order, granting interim maintenance of ₹7,000 to Opposite Party No. 2, was stayed by the High Court.
Decision
With this ruling, the Allahabad High Court has issued notice to the Opposite Party No. 2, allowing her a three-week period to file a counter-affidavit. Following this, the petitioner will have a week to respond with a rejoinder. The matter is set to be reconsidered on November 25, 2024.
Meanwhile, the court clarified that this stay on the interim maintenance order would not obstruct the Family Court from reaching a final decision on the maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 6106 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Manjive Shukla
– Advocates:
– For the Petitioner: Rishabh Agarwal
– For the Opposite Party: Satya Narayan Yadav, represented by Advocate Arun Kumar Yadav
