Facts
The petitioner (husband) challenged the judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, which granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month to Respondent No. 2 (wife) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner contended that the respondent was not entitled to maintenance as she had entered into a second marriage with Respondent No. 3 during the pendency of the proceedings.
Source reference: p. 2-3, 6Procedural history shows that an interim stay on the maintenance order was granted on 18.01.2012.
Source reference: p. 4Despite service of notice being complete on all respondents by August 2012, no one appeared for the wife or the alleged second husband for over a decade.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the Respondent No. 2 (wife) had re-married, thereby disqualifying her from claiming maintenance from her first husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates a person with sufficient means to maintain a wife who is unable to maintain herself.
Source reference: p. 3Explanation to Section 125 Cr.P.C., which explicitly states that the definition of "wife" for the purposes of maintenance excludes a person who has re-married.
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The court observed that despite the suspension of maintenance payments since 2012, the respondent wife made no effort to vacate the interim order or contest the proceedings, shifting the inference toward the truth of the re-marriage allegations.
Source reference: p. 6The court noted that the petitioner’s claim of the wife's re-marriage was supported by evidence from witness D.W. 2 in the lower court.
Source reference: p. 6Since the legal definition of "wife" under Section 125 excludes those who have re-married, and there was no evidence or averment from the respondent to rebut the claim of her second marriage to Respondent No. 3, the court determined that the statutory requirement for maintenance was no longer met.
Source reference: p. 3, 6Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the respondent's re-marriage disentitled her to maintenance.
The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Family Court, Kamrup; the appeal was allowed, and the Trial Court Records (TCR) were ordered to be sent back.
Source reference: p. 6-7Original Court PDF
Md. Putul AlivsThe State Of Assam And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in