MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

No Maintenance for Wife Living Separately Without Reasonable Cause: Jharkhand HC Applies Section 125(4) CrPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has set aside the lower court’s order granting maintenance to a wife living separately from her husband without sufficient reason, underlining the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court focused on the eligibility for maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which precludes a wife from receiving maintenance if she is living separately from her husband without sufficient reason.

The case involved a marital dispute between Amit Kumar Kachhap and Sangeeta Toppo, with allegations of dowry demands, cruelty, and adultery. Sangeeta Toppo accused Amit of cruelty and adultery, leading to her leaving the matrimonial home. Amit contended that Sangeeta left voluntarily and even remarried, disentitling her to maintenance.

The Court meticulously evaluated the testimonies and evidence presented. Sangeeta Toppo and her mother testified about the alleged cruelty and dowry demands, but contradictions arose regarding Sangeeta’s claims of pregnancy and abortion. Amit Kumar Kachhap and his witnesses challenged these claims, insisting on her voluntary abandonment and subsequent remarriage.

The Court noted, "In view of the overall evidence adduced, it is found that the respondent-applicant has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause.” The prescription from Dr. Indu Chouhan, which indicated Sangeeta’s pregnancy, was a critical piece of evidence that contradicted her claims.

Decision: The High Court ruled that Sangeeta Toppo was not entitled to maintenance, as she failed to establish a reasonable cause for living separately from her husband. The Court set aside the lower court’s order that had granted her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000.

Date of Decision:  February 2, 2024

Amit Kumar Kachhap vs. Sangeeta Toppo,

Similar News