Ahmedabad Others
Despite the divorce certificate, the man was ordered to pay maintenance
HC upholds family court order of Rs 25,000 monthly maintenance
Court
Ahmedabad Mirror
March 7, 2024 6:00 am | UPDATED: 03/08/2024 02:47 | 9 min read
A costly failure to legally complete a divorce has left a man having to pay Rs 25,000 a month to support his wife and child. This came after the Supreme Court dismissed his challenge to a family court's maintenance order, highlighting the importance of formal court proceedings in divorce cases. In this case, his wife had started living with another man and five years had passed since their separation.
Suresh Dhakan (names changed for privacy reasons) and Shilpa tied the knot in 2005, but their marriage faltered, leading to their breakup in 2013. Despite the drafting of a divorce document in which Shilpa waived her right to maintenance and took custody of her child. However, one of the clauses in the deed specifically stated that the divorce had to be formalized by a competent court, but the couple did not follow through. Shilpa then started a new relationship with Mayur (name changed), which also ended with a criminal case and a settlement in 2017. This led to her seeking maintenance from Suresh under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in the Family Court. The court passed a maintenance order of Rs 15,000 per month for Shilpa and Rs 10,000 per month for her child.
Suresh's appeal to the Supreme Court relied on allegations of Shilpa's alleged bad faith, pointing to her waiver of maintenance claims and their subsequent relationship, which he described as adultery. However, Shilpa's defense highlighted her current financial situation, her single status and emphasized Suresh's continued responsibility towards her and her child.
The court's decision highlighted two critical points: the necessity of a formal divorce through the courts and the statutory nature of maintenance entitlement under Section 125 of the CrPC, which is unaffected by personal agreements.
Regarding adultery, the HC said, “The expression “living in adultery” in Section 125 of the Code is intentionally used to indicate that an isolated act is not enough. Consistent behavior and living in a permanent and quasi-permanent adulterous relationship with the beloved must be proven. Such adulterous behavior or even any element thereof has not been proven.”
Comments are closed.