Facts
The parties married in 2009 and separated in 2017
Source reference: p. 1-2The wife (Neeru) initially filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2018, resulting in an ex-parte order in 2020 awarding Rs. 5,000 for herself and Rs. 3,000 for their son
Source reference: p. 2The husband's application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed on May 10, 2022
Source reference: p. 3Subsequently, the wife sought additional maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act), where the Trial Court awarded Rs. 4,000 per month on August 2, 2023
Source reference: p. 2Upon appeal by the wife, the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, enhanced this D.V. Act award to Rs. 8,000 per month via order dated May 13, 2024
Source reference: p. 1-2The husband challenged the dismissal of his Section 126 application and the enhancement under the D.V. Act, while the wife sought further enhancement
Source reference: p. 1, 3Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent dismissal of the Section 126 Cr.P.C. application were legally sustainable given the husband's claim of non-service
Source reference: p. 42. Whether a claim for maintenance under the D.V. Act is maintainable and justifiable when a prior maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. already exists
Source reference: p. 43. Whether the enhancement of maintenance to a total of Rs. 16,000 per month was fair and adequate considering the husband's income and the cost of living
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C. regarding the statutory obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and child, and Section 126 Cr.P.C. concerning the procedure for setting aside ex-parte orders upon showing "good cause"
Source reference: p. 4It also utilized the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides a parallel remedy for maintenance
Source reference: p. 2The Court adhered to the principle that maintenance from different statutes is permissible but must be considered cumulatively to ensure a "just, fair and adequate" amount
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court rejected the husband's plea that he was not served in the Section 125 proceedings, noting his admission in the Section 126 application that he had knowledge of the case but chose not to contest based on legal advice
Source reference: p. 4The Court found this behavior indicative of an attempt to hide his true income as a government employee
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the overlapping claims, the Court observed that the D.V. Act court was fully aware of the existing Rs. 8,000 award under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and specifically awarded the additional amount as a supplement
Source reference: p. 4-5The Court justified the final total of Rs. 16,000 (Rs. 8,000 from Cr.P.C. and Rs. 8,000 from D.V. Act) by citing the husband’s monthly salary of approximately Rs. 45,000, his additional rental and agricultural income, the rising cost of living, and the educational needs of the 13-year-old son
Source reference: p. 2, 5Holding
The High Court dismissed all petitions filed by the husband and the wife, upholding the impugned orders
It held that the dismissal of the Section 126 Cr.P.C. application was valid as the husband failed to show sufficient cause for his absence
Source reference: p. 4It further held that the cumulative maintenance of Rs. 16,000 per month awarded under both Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the D.V. Act was "just, fair and adequate" and did not suffer from any illegality
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
NeeruvsState Of U.P. And 8 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in