Section 125 CrPC | Patna High Court Holds Muslim Woman Entitled to Maintenance Post-Divorce Absent Proof of Reasonable and Fair Provision During Iddat
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Patna Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar upheld a Family Court order directing a Muslim husband to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rejecting the husband’s contention that the marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent, the Court held that in the absence of credible proof of divorce and without evidence of a reasonable and fair provision made during the iddat period, the wife’s statutory right to maintenance subsisted and the petition challenging the order was liable to be dismissed
The matter before the Patna High Court arose from a criminal revision petition filed by a husband against an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur. The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay ₹7,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner challenged this order on grounds relating to the subsistence of the marriage and the wife’s entitlement to maintenance.
The husband contended that his marital relationship with the opposite party had come to an end by way of divorce effected through mutual consent. He asserted that a document evidencing such dissolution had been executed between them and argued that the Family Court had erred in treating the marriage as subsisting. On this basis, he submitted that his wife was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as she was no longer his legally wedded spouse.
The wife, on the other hand, denied the claim of divorce. She submitted that no valid dissolution had been proved in accordance with Muslim personal law and that she continued to be legally married to the petitioner. She further argued that she had no independent means of livelihood and required financial support to sustain herself.
The Family Court, after hearing both sides, had allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 CrPC and fixed the monthly maintenance at ₹7,000, holding that the husband’s claim of divorce had not been established through credible evidence.
The petitioner sought interference with the Family Court’s order, while the wife defended the award of maintenance, arguing that the statutory right under Section 125 CrPC remained enforceable in her favour.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim of divorce by mutual consent was not supported by acceptable evidence. It recorded: “The husband has not been able to prove by cogent evidence that the marital relationship had been dissolved in accordance with law.”
The Court stated that “mere assertion of divorce is insufficient unless substantiated by valid proof in terms of Muslim law.” It further observed: “The document relied upon by the petitioner cannot be treated as a lawful dissolution of marriage, as the essential requirements have not been demonstrated.”
On the subsistence of the marital relationship, the Court recorded: “In the absence of reliable proof of divorce, the status of the wife as legally wedded continues.”
Turning to the applicability of Section 125 CrPC, the Court observed: “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice. It is meant to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to maintain those who are unable to sustain themselves.”
It also stated: “Even assuming that a divorce had taken place, the obligation of the husband does not cease if he has failed to make a reasonable and fair provision for the wife during the iddat period.” The Court thus recorded: “The statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC survives if the husband has not discharged his responsibility of ensuring fair provision.”
The Court noted that the Family Court had assessed the wife’s need and the husband’s capacity and fixed the monthly maintenance at ₹7,000. It observed: “The determination of the quantum of maintenance is consistent with the evidence on record and does not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.”
Justice Kumar stated: “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no illegality or perversity in appreciation of evidence committed by learned Court below while passing the impugned order. “Hence, the impugned order is upheld, dismissing the present criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner for want of any substance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate; Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, APP; Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
Case Title: Md. Murshid Alam v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 657 of 2022
Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar
