CrPC Section 125 — Maintenance of wives, children and parents

Judgments citing CrPC Section 125

1. B.Balaji vs B.Padmavathi on 17 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana17 Feb 2023

   Case Name: B.Balaji vs B.Padmavathi on 17 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 17 February, 2023 Bench: Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Divorce, Cruelty, Dowry, Section 498-A IPC, Domestic Violence, Permanent Alimony Key Legal Propositions 1. Prolonged separation (over 12 years) and continuous litigation can establish an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, justifying divorce. 2. Filing multiple complaints against a spouse, coupled with a refusal to reconcile, may constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce. 3. While jurisdiction may be a concern if a marriage is not performed under the Hindu Marriage Act, failure to raise the issue before the trial court may preclude its consideration on appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a divorce decree granted by the trial court in a Hindu Marriage Petition (H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2010). The husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, alleging the wife filed false complaints (Section 498-A IPC, Domestic Violence Act), caused financial strain, and refused to maintain a relationship with his family. The wife contested, claiming she was subjected to cruelty and dowry

2. Smt Asha Latha & Master Shanmukha Sharma vs Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan & The State of Telangana on 12 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Smt Asha Latha & Master Shanmukha Sharma vs Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan & The State of Telangana on 12 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 12 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision, Maintenance, Code of Criminal Procedure Key Legal Propositions 1. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge’s order dismissing the maintenance claim for the wife, finding she earns Rs. 34,000/- per month. 2. The Court affirmed the grant of Rs. 15,000/- per month maintenance to the son, considering the prevailing circumstances at the time of the original order. 3. Any request for enhancement of maintenance for the son can be addressed through an application under Section 127 of CrPC before the concerned court. Judgment Summary Background: These Criminal Revision Cases arise from an order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge regarding a petition filed under Section 125 of CrPC seeking monthly maintenance. The wife and son filed a revision against the order, while the husband filed a separate revision. The core issue revolves around the grant or denial of maintenance, consid

3. Vadapalli Ramesh vs Unknown on 11 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh11 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A revision petition challenging an order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be dismissed as infructuous. 2. Dismissal of a revision petition results in the abatement of any pending miscellaneous applications. 3. Absence of representation for the respondent does not preclude the Court from dismissing the petition on grounds of it being infructuous. Judgment Summary Background: The present Criminal Revision Case arises from an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granting interim maintenance to the wife and educational expenses for the children. The petitioners (the original defendant) sought to revise this order. However, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the relief sought in the original application had become infructuous. Held: A. On Validity of Revision Petition: Majority View: The Court held that when the relief sought in the original application becomes infructuous, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pending Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: Any miscellaneous applications pending in conne

4. Podili Venkata Seetha Rama Murthy vs The State of A.P. on 07 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh7 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Podili Venkata Seetha Rama Murthy vs The State of A.P. on 07 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 07 August, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi Pratap Subject: Criminal Revision Key Legal Propositions 1. A compromise reached between parties can lead to the dismissal of a criminal revision case. 2. Courts may dismiss cases as ‘not pressed’ when parties indicate their intention to withdraw from the litigation. 3. Maintenance petitions filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are subject to compromise and withdrawal. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case arises from an order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in M.C.No.147 of 2008. The original petition under Section 125 CrPC sought monthly maintenance. The revision petitioner challenged the order, seeking modification of the maintenance amount. Held: A. On Compromise & Withdrawal: Majority View: The Court noted that a compromise had been reached between the parties at the intervention of their elders and well-wishers. Consequently, the revision petitione

5. Potla Ramamohan vs The State of A.P. on 28 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh28 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Potla Ramamohan vs The State of A.P. on 28 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh :: Amaravati Date of Judgment: 28 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy Subject: Criminal Revision Key Legal Propositions 1. A party can be permitted to file an affidavit in response to a rejoinder filed in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The High Court has the power to dispose of a criminal revision at the admission stage with directions. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications are subject to disposal in consequence of the main order. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner (husband) filed a Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging a docket order dated 7 July 2022 passed by the Family Court, Anantapuramu, in F.C.O.P. No. 29 of 2020. The original O.P. was filed by the respondents (wife and children) seeking maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought to file an affidavit denying allegations in the respondents’ rejoinder to his counter. Held: A. On Issue of Filing Affidavit to Rejoinder: Majority View: The Court permitted the petitioner to file an affidavit responding to the rejoinder filed by the respon

6. Jakkampudi Lalitha vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 05 September, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh5 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Jakkampudi Lalitha vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 05 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh :: Amaravati Date of Judgment: 05 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari Subject: Writ Petition – Death Certificate Dispute – Family Pension – Maintenance – Legitimacy of Wife Key Legal Propositions 1. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum to determine a disputed question of fact regarding marital status, requiring evidence and proof. 2. Endorsement refusing to alter a death certificate without a competent court order is not inherently illegal, particularly when the question of marital status remains unresolved. 3. Authorities considering service benefits based on the death certificate must provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pending adjudication of her marital status by a competent court. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner challenged an endorsement refusing to modify a death certificate listing a different woman (Respondent No. 7) as the wife of the deceased, Sambaiah. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife and seeks correction of the death certificate,

7. Smt. Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi Pratap vs The State on 31 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh31 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Smt. Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi Pratap vs The State on 31 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 31 August, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi Pratap Subject: Criminal Law, Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C., Standard of Proof of Marriage, Revisional Jurisdiction. Key Legal Propositions 1. Strict proof of marriage is not essential for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly when a woman is publicly accepted as the wife of a person. 2. Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and is intended to correct patent defects or errors of law or jurisdiction, not to re-appreciate evidence. 3. A long period of cohabitation can give rise to a presumption of marriage for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., fulfilling the social object of preventing vagrancy and destitution. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner/Wife filed a revision petition challenging the Sessions Court’s reversal of the Trial Court’s order awarding her maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The central issue was whether the Petitioner had sufficiently established her marital status to be eligible for main

8. Smt. Priya Sharma vs Sanjit Sharma on 13 July, 2023

   High Court of Chhattisgarh13 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Smt. Priya Sharma vs Sanjit Sharma on 13 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 13 July, 2023 Bench: Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Subject: Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – Dowry Harassment – Maintenance Key Legal Propositions 1. Granting a divorce decree based solely on the husband’s unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty, without corroborating evidence (especially regarding in-law’s treatment), is unsustainable. 2. A wife’s refusal to stay with her husband, particularly when coupled with a pending dowry harassment case and apprehension of threat to life, cannot *ipso facto* be construed as desertion or cruelty justifying divorce. 3. The husband cannot benefit from his own wrongful acts; a divorce decree should not be granted if the husband has not discharged the burden of proving cruelty based on pleadings and evidence. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a Family Court decree granting the husband a divorce under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by the wife. The parties married in 2015, and the wife left the matrimonial home in 2016 following

9. Ravishankar Shrivas vs Smt. Sarita Sen on 25 September, 2023

   High Court of Chhattisgarh25 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Ravishankar Shrivas vs Smt. Sarita Sen on 25 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 25.09.2023 Bench: Goutam Bhaduri & Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Subject: Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion, Maintenance Key Legal Propositions 1. Refusal by the husband to accept his wife back, despite her willingness to resume cohabitation, cannot be construed as cruelty on the part of the wife. 2. Mere assertions of desertion are insufficient; proof of lack of effort by the husband to reconcile or apply for restitution of conjugal rights is crucial. 3. Past conduct condoned by the husband cannot later be cited as grounds for divorce based on cruelty. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant/husband filed an appeal challenging the Family Court’s dismissal of his divorce petition. He alleged cruelty and desertion by the respondent/wife. The parties were married in 2005, and the wife left the matrimonial home in 2009, returning briefly before leaving again. The husband claimed the wife neglected his parents and refused to reside with him. The wife countered that the husband harassed her and refused to allow her to return, despite her willingness to do so

10. Jaya Tiwari vs Abhishek Tiwari on 19 September, 2023

    High Court of Chhattisgarh19 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Jaya Tiwari vs Abhishek Tiwari on 19 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 19.09.2023 Bench: Goutam Bhaduri & Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Subject: Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion, Hindu Marriage Act, Maintenance Key Legal Propositions 1. Mere trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of married life are insufficient grounds for granting a divorce on the basis of mental cruelty. 2. A husband cannot benefit from his own wrongdoing in a divorce petition; he must demonstrate a genuine effort to reconcile before seeking dissolution of the marriage. 3. The court may award permanent alimony considering the wife's lack of independent income, the husband's earning capacity, and prevailing economic conditions. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a Family Court decree granting divorce to the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on grounds of cruelty. The appellant/wife challenges this decree, alleging that the husband failed to prove cruelty and that he was at fault for the marital breakdown. The parties married in 2009 and have one son. The husband alleged cruelty and desertion,

11. Smt. Priyanka Agrawal vs. Rahul Agrawal on 21 September, 2023

    High Court of Chhattisgarh21 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Smt. Priyanka Agrawal vs. Rahul Agrawal on 21 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 21.09.2023 Bench: Goutam Bhaduri & Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Subject: Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion, Hindu Marriage Act Key Legal Propositions 1. The concept of cruelty in matrimonial matters is subjective and depends on the specific facts, circumstances, upbringing, and socio-economic background of the parties involved. 2. Courts must adopt a holistic approach when examining cases involving divorce, considering the social and economic realities and the status of the parties. 3. The grounds for divorce must be established through evidence demonstrating a consistent pattern of conduct constituting cruelty within the context of the marital relationship. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Family Court decree granting divorce to the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on grounds of cruelty. The appellant/wife challenges this decree, asserting that cruelty was not established and that she was not deserted willingly. The dispute centers around allegations of the wife’s behavior towards

12. Pragya Walke vs. Ram Chandra Rao Walke @Sidharth on 5th October, 2023

    High Court of Delhi

    Case Name: Pragya Walke vs. Ram Chandra Rao Walke @Sidharth on 5th October, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 5th October, 2023 Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Neena Bansal Krishna Subject: Divorce; Cruelty; Hindu Marriage Act; Family Courts Act; Mental Cruelty; Allegations of Adultery; Domestic Violence Key Legal Propositions 1. Unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital affairs, particularly when lacking evidence, constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Repeatedly filing false complaints (dowry, harassment, domestic violence) and making defamatory allegations against a spouse and their family, without substantiation, amounts to mental cruelty. 3. While resorting to legal remedies simplicitor does not constitute cruelty, a pattern of unsubstantiated accusations and legal proceedings can be indicative of a cruel environment. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a Family Court decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant wife and respondent husband on the grounds of cruelty. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

13. Tarun Kumar vs Parmanand Garg on 09 November, 2023

    High Court of Delhi9 Nov 2023

    Case Name: Tarun Kumar vs Parmanand Garg on 09 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 09.11.2023 Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh Subject: Eviction Petition; Delhi Rent Control Act; Bona Fide Requirement; Leave to Defend Key Legal Propositions 1. A landlord’s bona fide requirement for personal use or for a family member dependent on them is a valid ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. Courts should not substitute their views for the trial court or conduct a roving inquiry while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, but rather ensure procedural compliance. 3. The status of a landlord’s marriage and the validity of a subsequent marriage are not issues to be determined in an eviction petition; the focus should remain on the landlord’s bona fide requirement and availability of alternative accommodation. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner (landlord) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, seeking possession of a shop let out to the respondent (tenant) on the ground of bona fide requirement for his wife to start a consultancy b

14. Smt Bhawana Sharma & Ors vs Shyam Sunder Sharma on 08 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi8 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Smt Bhawana Sharma & Ors vs Shyam Sunder Sharma on 08 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 08 August, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Criminal Revision Petition – Maintenance – Enhancement of Maintenance – Date of Effect Key Legal Propositions 1. Maintenance applications, whether under Section 125 or 127 Cr.P.C., should ideally be considered from the date of application and not the date of the order, to prevent financial hardship during pendency. 2. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. and Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows for correction of patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, or arbitrary exercise of discretion. 3. The power to alter maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. exists both during the pendency of a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application and after its finality, contingent upon a change in circumstances. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners challenged an order of the Trial Court enhancing interim maintenance to 38% of the Respondent’s gross salary from July 2016. The Petitioners argued the enhancement should be effective from the date of their application under Section 127 C

15. Uma Gogia vs Kiran Kumar on 21 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi21 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Uma Gogia vs Kiran Kumar on 21 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 21.08.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revision Petition – Quantum of Maintenance – Deductions from Salary Key Legal Propositions 1. While determining the quantum of maintenance, Courts are required to consider only mandatory and statutory deductions from income, not voluntary contributions. 2. A husband cannot be permitted to reduce his net income through excessive voluntary deductions to diminish his obligation to pay maintenance. 3. The quantum of maintenance should enable the claimant to live with reasonable comfort, considering her status and lifestyle during the marriage. Judgment Summary Background: The present revision petition challenges an order of the Family Court regarding the amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought enhancement of maintenance, alleging that the Family Court failed to consider the respondent’s actual income and incorrectly applied the 7th Pay Commission implementation date. The respondent denied the allegations, asserting the Family Court

16. AB vs. CD on 16 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi16 May 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Parties can settle disputes and seek withdrawal of appeals before the High Court. 2. Courts can enforce confidentiality agreements reached between parties in family matters. 3. Courts have the power to direct redaction of party names from records and restrict access to court proceedings and orders. Judgment Summary Background: Two appeals (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 119/2014 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 127/2014) were before the High Court of Delhi concerning a divorce decree. The parties appeared in person and informed the Court that they had reached a settlement. Held: A. On Settlement & Withdrawal of Appeals: Majority View: The Court accepted the parties’ settlement and allowed them to withdraw their respective appeals, dismissing them as withdrawn but binding them to the agreed terms. Dissenting View: None. B. On Confidentiality: Majority View: The Court accepted the undertaking of the parties to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the proceedings and the divorce decree, preventing public disclosure. Dissenting View: None. C. On Disbursement of Funds & Redaction of Records: Majority View: The Court directed the Re

17. Anju vs Anil & Anr. on 02 February, 2023

    High Court of Delhi2 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Anju vs Anil & Anr. on 02 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 02.02.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Revision, Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC, Restoration of Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 125 CrPC aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy for sustenance to deserted wives, children, and parents. 2. Trial Courts should not mechanically apply procedural rules if it defeats the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable parties. 3. While non-appearance can lead to dismissal, courts should consider extenuating circumstances, such as illness, and prior conduct before closing evidence, especially when interim relief has already been granted. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner challenged the dismissal of her petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband. The Trial Court dismissed the petition after the petitioner failed to appear on two dates, leading to closure of her evidence. The petitioner claimed she was undergoing cancer treatment and her counsel failed to inform her of the hearings. Held: A. On Restoration of Petition & Pro

18. Mohit Kumar Gaur & Ors. vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on 27th March, 2023

    High Court of Delhi

    Case Name: Mohit Kumar Gaur & Ors. vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on 27th March, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 27th March, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Quashing of FIR, Matrimonial Dispute, Settlement, Section 482 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. High Courts possess inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs, particularly in amicable settlements, to secure the ends of justice. 2. Courts should encourage amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes, fostering a quietus to proceedings. 3. Voluntary settlements, entered without fear, force, or coercion, warrant quashing of criminal proceedings even if the offences are not compoundable. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition sought quashing of FIR No. 0358/2019 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, lodged by Respondent No. 2/Ms. Shalu Bensla. The parties had been living separately since 06.03.2019 and a divorce decree was granted on 06.08.2022. A settlement deed was executed, outlining financial terms and mutual undertakings, including withdrawal of pending cases. Held: A. On Quashing of FIR & Section 4

19. Suman vs Union of India & Anr. on 06 January, 2023

    High Court of Delhi6 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Despite a pending divorce petition and dispute regarding the validity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, a petitioner can be granted benefits under schemes like ECHS and CSD, subject to completion of necessary formalities. 2. Courts can waive procedural requirements for estranged spouses to facilitate access to welfare benefits, prioritizing practical considerations over strict adherence to rules. 3. Access to benefits like ECHS and CSD cards is contingent upon the subsistence of marriage, and can be revoked upon annulment by a competent court. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought directions to add her name to the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) Card, Canteen Stores Department (CSD) Card, and Zila Sainik Board records, recognizing her as the wife of respondent no. 3. She also requested updates to the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and Discharge Book, and compensation of Rs. 80 lakh. Respondent no. 3 contested the validity of the marriage, citing the absence of ‘Saptabadi’ and a pending divorce petition with a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Held: A. On ECHS Card & P

20. Himanshu Chauhan & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 04 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi4 May 2023

    Case Name: Himanshu Chauhan & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 04 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 04 May, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Section 482 Cr.P.C., Quashing of FIR, Matrimonial Dispute, Settlement, Dowry, Maintenance, Divorce by Mutual Consent. Key Legal Propositions 1. High Courts possess inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs, particularly in cases of amicable settlement, to prevent abuse of the legal process. 2. Courts should encourage amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes, recognizing the parties' right to resolve matters privately. 3. A full and final settlement, including payment of agreed amounts towards dowry, istridhan, and alimony, is a strong factor supporting the quashing of criminal proceedings. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition sought quashing of FIR No. 132/2020 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Dabri, stemming from a matrimonial dispute. The parties entered into a Settlement Deed dated 24.03.2021, agreeing to divorce by mutual consent and a financial settlement. The wife had also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Vi