An analysis for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case titled Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale.
Facts of the Case: The marriage of the Applicant was solemnized with the Respondent on 12th November 1997 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The Applicant claimed, since the inception of marital life, the Respondent treated the Applicant with extreme cruelty. The Applicant was subjected to harassment in order to coerce her to meet unlawful demands. The Respondent had dropped the applicant at her parental home at Satara in the month of January 1999. Despite repeated assurances, the Respondent did not come to fetch back the Applicant to her marital home. Ultimately with the intervention of the police, the Applicant was allowed to enter her matrimonial home at Mahatma Society, Pune Maintenance U/s 125 Of Code of Criminal Procedure
Read Also: Maintenance Laws In India Maintenance U/s 125 Of Code of Criminal Procedure
From the month of September 2012, the Respondent stopped the visits to the house of the Applicant. The Respondent had not made any provision for the maintenance and livelihood of the Applicant. The Applicant has no source of income. The Applicant could sustain herself on the financial support of her father. In contrast, the Respondent has sufficient means. The Respondent deals in a thriving business under the name and style “P.C. Care”. The Respondent owns a huge bungalow at Mahatma Society and another plot of land at Bushwa Peth, Pune. The Respondent also owns office premises admeasuring 400 sq. Ft. at Shani war Peth, Pune. Despite having a sumptuous income, the Respondent refused and neglected to provide for the necessities of life of the Applicant was desirous of perusing her carrier and opened a beauty parlor under the name and style of“Kalyani Beauty Parlour”.
Bombay High Court Maintenance U/s 125 Of Code of Criminal Procedure
N.J. Jamdar, J., while addressing a revision application with regard to maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 held that Statutory rights of the wife of maintenance cannot be permitted to be bartered away or infringed by setting up an agreement not to claim maintenance.
Family Court had held that “Applicant being a wife, despite being a divorcee, within the meaning of Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of the Code, the agreement to reside separately from the Respondent does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance.” Maintenance U/s 125 Of Code of Criminal Procedure
To the above, the Supreme Court held that a woman after divorce becomes destitute. If she cannot maintain herself and remains unmarried, the man who was once her husband continues to be under a duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her. Maintenance U/s 125 Of Code of Criminal Procedure
Statutory rights of the wife of maintenance cannot be permitted to be bartered away or infringed by setting up an agreement not to claim maintenance. Such a clause in the agreement would be void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, being opposed the public policy
Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwa v. Anil Kachwa, III 2014 (DMC) 878 S.C., held that:
“In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.”
HELD Maintenance U/s 125 Of Code of Criminal Procedure
Hence, Respondent-husband shall pay maintenance to the Applicant at the rate of Rs 12,000/- per month from the date of the Petition i.e. 17th June 2016. Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC Bom694 decided on 26-05-2020]
Author: This analysis has been done by Ishmeet Kaur, B.A. LLB, student of Government Mohindra College, Patiala.
Note: For any further information or any query you may contact us on 9855677966 or via email info@bhandarilawfirm.com
