Patna High Court Directs Husband To Pay Maintenance To Wife
The Patna Excessive Courtroom has directed the husband to pay upkeep to his spouse, saying {that a} mere lapse and a return financial institution to the conventional life can’t be mentioned to be residing in adultery.
The Courtroom was listening to a Prison Revision Petition searching for to put aside the Order of the Household Courtroom, which directed upkeep in favour of the son however denied the identical to the spouse.
A Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar noticed, “Furthermore, “residing in adultery” is distinct from “committing adultery”. “Residing in adultery” denotes a steady course of conduct and never remoted acts of immorality. One or two lapses from virtues could be acts of adultery however could be fairly inadequate to point out that the girl was “residing in adultery”. A mere lapse, whether or not it’s one or two, and a return again to a standard life can’t be mentioned to be residing in adultery. If the lapse is sustained and adopted up by an extra adulterous life, the girl could be mentioned to be “residing in adultery.”
The Bench held that the husband did not show that his spouse has been residing in adulterous life with one other man.
Advocate Fazle Karim represented the Petitioners whereas Senior Advocate N.Okay. Agrawal and APP Anuj Kumar Shrivastava represented the Respondents.
Information of the Case
The Petitioners (Respondent’s spouse and son) had filed a Upkeep Case earlier than the Household Courtroom beneath Part 125 of the Prison Process Code, 1973 (CrPC). The wedding between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized in 2013 as per Muslim rites and customs and a son was born out of the wedlock in 2014. Allegedly, through the being pregnant, the Petitioner got here again to her parental house on account of in poor health behaviour of kin of her husband. It was alleged that after the delivery of kid, her husband and his relations began demanding Rs. 5 lakhs in direction of further dowry and threatened that in case of failure to satisfy the identical, her husband would solemnize second marriage with one other woman.
It was alleged that on account of failure to pay further dowry, the Petitioner was ousted from the matrimonial house in 2017 and even her ornaments had been snatched from her. Thereafter, the husband allegedly solemnized second marriage. Therefore, the Petitioners claimed month-to-month upkeep @ Rs. 20,000/-. In his written assertion, the Respondent claimed that the Petitioner had developed illicit relationship with a person. The Household Courtroom directed the husband to pay Rs. 4,000/- monthly as upkeep to his son; nevertheless, denied any upkeep to his spouse. Therefore, the Petitioners approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom within the above regard, mentioned, “Coming again to the case available, I discover that Respondent No. 2/Md. Shamshad has pleaded that he has divorced his spouse/Bulbul Khatoon, who’s petitioner No. 1 herein, by saying Triple Talaq within the presence of 1 witness in a single sitting. He has additionally adduced proof in assist of such pleadings. Nevertheless, there isn’t a declare that he has paid a single paisa to his spouse throughout iddat interval in direction of her upkeep, not to mention making any provision for her life. It’s also admitted that he has not paid even Dainmehar to his spouse.”
The Courtroom referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Courtroom within the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), whereby ‘Triple Talaq’ was held as void and unlawful.
“Therefore, Bulbul Khatoon can’t be held to be a divorced spouse. There may be additionally no pleading or proof on report to show that Bulbul Khatoon has been divorced by Md. Shamshad by some other authorized mode”, it added.
Moreover, the Courtroom remarked that even whether it is presumed for a second that the Petitioner is divorced, the legal responsibility of the Respondent to take care of his former spouse continues to be there, as a result of to flee from legal responsibility to pay month-to-month upkeep to his spouse, he was required not solely to pay upkeep to his spouse throughout iddat interval, however was additionally required to make provision for lifetime of his former spouse throughout iddat interval.
“However nothing of the kind has been completed by Md. Shamshad in favour of his former spouse. Admittedly, even Dainmehar has not been paid by him to his former spouse. … It’s also not a case of Md. Shamshad that he received any decree of restitution towards his spouse/Bulbul Khatoon, nor has he claimed that he has been acquitted within the prison criticism filed by Bulbul Khatoon”, it additionally famous.
Conclusion
The Courtroom, subsequently, held that the Petitioner is entitled to get upkeep from her husband as a result of she has no means to take care of herself, whereas her husband is an able-bodied particular person and doing the work of labourer.
“Nevertheless, I discover that discovered Household Courtroom by the impugned judgment/order has denied upkeep to Bulbul Khatoon on account of his discovering that she has been residing in adultery with Md. Tarikat, whereas there isn’t a such cogent proof on report. As such, the findings of discovered Household Courtroom is predicated on no proof or perverse appreciation of proof. Accordingly, the impugned order is just not sustainable within the eye of legislation and therefore, it’s put aside to this extent and it’s held that the petitioner No. 1/Bulbul Khatoon can be entitled to get upkeep from her husband/Respondent No. 2 herein”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom allowed the Petition and directed the husband to pay Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as upkeep to his son and spouse, respectively.
Trigger Title- Bulbul Khatoon & Anr. v. The State of Bihar (Case Quantity: CRIMINAL REVISION No.509 of 2021)
Look:
Petitioners: Advocate Fazle Karim
Respondents: Senior Advocate N.Okay. Agrawal, APP Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, Advocates Bidhu Ranjan, and Saroj Kumar Choudhary.