Wife can declare alimony if husband creates state of affairs of no return: courtroom

The Delhi High Court said that if the husband creates circumstances of no return, the wife can claim alimony.

New Delhi:

The mere existence of a court order requiring a wife to restore marital relations with her husband does not absolve her from seeking alimony under criminal law if he has created such circumstances that she cannot stay with him, the colonel said Delhi Court.

The Court noted that judges should keep in mind the need to provide a decent life for those who must be supported by those legally obligated to maintain them, and the objective of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which provides for this Alimony payments to wives under certain circumstances.

The court also emphasized that each alimony case “cannot be painted and written with the same brush stroke and pen stroke” and the courts involved must be “sensitive and careful”.

The court’s comments came in response to a woman’s motion against a court order finding that she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in respect of a civil court order granting her an ex parte decree restoring marital rights was awarded.

Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma found that the trial court’s view was “wrong,” noting that an ex parte decree restoring marital rights does not constitute an absolute bar to consideration of the award of alimony under criminal law, and if that If the court concerned is satisfied with evidence that the wife had legitimate reasons for staying away from the husband, maintenance may be granted.

“The mere existence of a decree restoring conjugal rights against the wife does not absolve her from maintenance claims if the husband’s conduct is such as to ensure that she cannot obey such a decree, or it was the husband who created one circumstances that prevented her from staying with him,” the court said in an order released earlier this month.

Noting that the petitioner’s alimony claim was filed in 2009, the court also noted that the present case “itself tells a story of how a child support claim became a child support battle that spanned nine long years in multiple courts.” “. and emphasizes “the need to raise awareness to eliminate such cases at the earliest”.

The court found that the petitioner had produced evidence before the court of first instance to claim that she had “every reason to stay away from the husband as there was a risk to her life” and that the court of first instance therefore ruled over the Child support should have decided that evidence, but the same didn’t happen.

“If the evidence on file shows that the husband’s conduct made the wife unable to live with him and he refused to support her and the minor children, her maintenance cannot be refused,” the judge said .

“The husband’s cruel behavior and attribution of immorality to his wife, and even the questioning of the paternity of the children born of the marriage, would justify her living apart and demanding alimony. Against this background, this court is examining the facts of the case as whether or not she was entitled to maintenance must be affirmed,” the court said.

While the court asked the trial court to reconsider the matter, the court added: “Judges dealing with such cases should keep in mind the aim of Section 125 Cr.PC and the need to protect people who lawfully entertain to enable a dignified existence the legally obliged persons to care for them quickly and with sensitivity”.

“The canvas of each individual’s life, which is represented in each case, is not similar, and therefore each judgment, though filed under the same department, cannot be painted and written with the same brushstroke and pen. Every case and every life depicted in it must be dealt with in the circumstances of that case,” the court said.

(Except for the headline, this story was not edited by NDTV staff and was published by a syndicated feed.)