Court affirms wife's right to maintenance, citing sufficient cause for living separately; rejects husband's plea for quashing orders.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Manoj Kumar Yadav, seeking to quash maintenance orders granted in favor of his wife. The court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the wife had sufficient cause to live separately, and reiterated that the revisional court lacks the jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence.
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Yadav, challenged the maintenance orders dated August 31, 2010, and December 17, 2016, arguing that his wife, Smt. Sita, was living separately without reasonable cause and was not entitled to maintenance as per Sections 125(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He contended that the trial court's decision was unsustainable as it failed to consider his claims adequately.
However, the High Court, presided by Justice Madan Pal Singh, emphasized that the trial court had already settled the issue of separate living in favor of the wife, Smt. Sita, in earlier proceedings. The trial court had found that the wife had sufficient cause for living separately and rejected the husband's claims. The revisional court reiterated that it could not substitute its findings for those of the trial court, given its jurisdictional limitations under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
The court noted that the trial court's findings were supported by evidence and that the husband had not challenged the separate living issue in previous proceedings. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that the husband's allegations of his wife's refusal to live with him without cause were unsupported by evidence.
The court also addressed the husband's claim of being deprived of marital bliss, noting that the wife had admitted to a lack of physical relations since 2005. Despite these claims, the court found that the issue of separate living had been conclusively decided in favor of the wife.
Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court ruled that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order, and the maintenance granted to the wife was upheld.
This judgment underscores the importance of sufficient cause in maintenance cases and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction in re-appreciating evidence.
Bottom Line:
Revision against maintenance orders under Section 125(4)(5) Cr.P.C. dismissed as trial court found no illegality or infirmity in maintenance granted to the wife, who was living separately for sufficient cause. Revisional court's jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 125(4)(5) Cr.P.C., Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2876671
