Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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,

Latest Legal News