The Patna High Court has ruled that a husband cannot deny maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by merely citing a disputed compromise deed as proof of a mutual divorce (‘Mubaraat’). The court stressed that a contested divorce requires a formal declaration from a competent court and its validity cannot be summarily decided in maintenance proceedings.
Justice Jitendra Kumar dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that had directed him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000 to his wife. The High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, finding no illegality or perversity in its findings.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by a woman in the Family Court, Bhagalpur. She submitted that she was married in December 2010 but was forced to leave her matrimonial home a few weeks later due to torture. Claiming to have no source of income, she sought maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month from her husband, who she stated was employed with a private company in Singapore and had a substantial income.
The husband, in his response, admitted the marriage but denied the allegations of cruelty. His primary defense was that the marriage had already been dissolved by mutual consent. He claimed that during a prior matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights, a compromise was reached, and he had paid his wife Rs. 1,00,000 towards her “alimony/den mohar and expenses of iddat.” He argued this payment terminated their marital relationship, thereby absolving him of any future maintenance liability.
Family Court’s Decision
On March 20, 2021, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, rejected the husband’s claim of divorce. The court noted that the wife disputed the compromise petition, alleging her signature was obtained by fraud. It found that the husband had failed to present any credible evidence to prove the divorce.
The Family Court determined that the husband had a monthly income of Rs. 1,00,000 while the wife had none. Finding that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife without sufficient cause, the court ordered him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The husband challenged the Family Court’s order in a criminal revision petition before the Patna High Court.
Justice Jitendra Kumar identified the central legal issue as the husband’s liability for maintenance when the divorce itself was in dispute. The court noted a critical procedural lapse in the husband’s case: the compromise petition, which formed the basis of his divorce claim, was never formally exhibited as evidence. The court observed that because the document was not exhibited, the wife was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine its genuineness. For this reason, the court held, “the compromise petition has hardly any evidentiary value in the eye of law…”
The High Court clarified that a summary proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not the proper venue to decide a contested issue of marital status. It held that when a mutual agreement for divorce is disputed, the party asserting the divorce must obtain a formal decree from a competent authority, like the Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The judgment concluded that the court found the marriage to be subsisting for want of any evidence or decree to the contrary.
Furthermore, the court held that even if the divorce were presumed to be valid for the sake of argument, the husband would still be liable for maintenance. It reasoned that a divorced Muslim wife who has not remarried is entitled to a “reasonable and fair provision” for her future. The court found the one-time payment of Rs. 1,00,000 to be insufficient, stating that a “reasonable and fair provision includes provision for her residence, food, clothes and other articles,” and pointed out that the sum also included ‘den mohar’, which is the wife’s separate entitlement.
Finding no legal infirmity in the Family Court’s order, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and upheld the maintenance award.
