01Facts
The petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) married on 01.05.2014.
¶ 2, 5The wife's first application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed on 27.08.2015.
¶ 2, 5Meanwhile, the husband obtained an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights (05.12.2014) and later a bi-parte decree of divorce (08.03.2017).
¶ 2, 5Following the divorce decree, the respondent filed a second application for maintenance on 28.03.2017.
¶ 5The Family Court, Mandla, awarded Rs. 7,000/- monthly maintenance in MJCR No. 83/2017.
¶ 1The husband challenged this order, contending the second application was barred by res judicata and that the wife resided separately without sufficient cause.
¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether a second application under Section 125 CrPC is maintainable when an earlier application was dismissed on merits, and whether the principle of res judicata applies to such summary proceedings?
¶ 6(i)ii.2. Whether, after the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, a wife is still required to establish that she is living separately for sufficient cause to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
¶ 6(ii)03Law Applied
Section 125 of the CrPC, specifically Explanation (b) to sub-section (1), which includes a "divorced woman" in the definition of a "wife".
¶ 8, 11Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (2000), established that a divorced wife’s right to maintenance is distinct from a married wife’s right, and the disqualifications under Section 125(4) CrPC (such as refusing to live with the husband without sufficient reason) do not apply once the marriage is dissolved.
¶ 8, 11Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025), holding that maintenance proceedings are summary and civil in nature, meaning civil court findings (like restitution of conjugal rights) are not absolute bars to Section 125 claims.
¶ 9, 13Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125Section 127
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9Section 13Section 24
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 34Section 35Section 36Section 37
04Reasoning
The court reasoned that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy.
¶ 8, 12It clarified that res judicata does not apply to Section 125 proceedings because they are summary in nature and a second application is permissible upon a "change in circumstances".
¶ 12, 13, 17The change in status from a "wife" to a "divorced wife" constituted a fresh cause of action.
¶ 11, 14, 16The court held that while the wife might have been denied maintenance earlier for living separately without cause while the marriage subsisted, those grounds became irrelevant after the divorce decree.
¶ 11, 14Once divorced, she is no longer under a legal obligation to live with her former husband, and the husband cannot offer to maintain her on the condition of living together.
¶ 8, 12(ii)05Holding
The court answered that a second maintenance application is maintainable in the event of changed circumstances (such as divorce) and is not barred by res judicata.
¶ 13, 17It further held that a divorced wife is not required to prove "sufficient cause" for living separately under Section 125(4).
¶ 11, 14The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order awarding Rs. 7,000/- per month and dismissed the criminal revision petition.
¶ 18, 19Original Court PDF
Chanchlesh SingarevsSmt. Rashmi Singare
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
