Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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,

Latest Legal News