Husband bound to pay maintenance even after wife receiving alimony if she can’t support herself or children-125 CrPC – P&H HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has noted that even though a wife has already received a lump sum payment from her husband as alimony, she may still submit a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The case concerned a 1983 wedding between the parties. They began living apart in 1993 following a marital argument between the two. The husband paid Rs. 3 lac as full and final alimony settlement for his wife’s and their two children’s past, present, and future claims of maintenance pursuant to a written compromise established in 1993.
However, the wife filed a Section 125 petition for maintenance in 2007, and the Additional Sessions Judge in Pathankot ultimately found in her favour in 2016. As a result of this decision, the wife was given support at a rate of Rs. 15,000 a month.
This infuriated the husband, who then filed the current petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to have the Additional Sessions Judge’s Pathankot judgement set aside.
The wife’s request under Section 125, according to the petitioner-husband, could not be accepted. Given that the parties had already reached a formal resolution, which the petitioner complied with, it was an abuse of the legal system.
The respondent wife, on the other hand, claimed that she was only making Rs. 17,000 up until her retirement in 2018 and that, in addition, she was burdened with the costs of her two children, who are both college students, making it impossible for her to pay for expenses like housing, electricity, water, and transportation.
It cannot be disputed that a woman and her two children could not have survived on the meagre sum of Rs. 3 lacs; it is impossible to survive on a meagre salary of Rs. 17,000 and to take care of her two children who were attending professional colleges. However, the single bench of Justice Amarjot Bhatti found that the plea under Section 125 was maintainable, despite the settlement in 1993. She had to take care of their daily expenses, including money for food, clothing, transportation, medical costs when needed, and other social responsibilities. She was therefore justified in submitting the petition in accordance with Section 125 CrPC.
Justice Bhatti concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge of Pathankot’s judgement granting the wife maintenance in the amount of Rs. 15,000 per month.
Sunil Sachdeva
vs
Rashmi and Another
