A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (4) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C -- It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree.

(Para 29)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (4) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 34, 35, 36, 37 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 40, 41, 42, 43 -- Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- Contention that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the Court seized of the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C, as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings – Held, even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings.

-- Section 41 of Evidence Act specifically deals with instances where an earlier judgment, order or decree constitutes conclusive proof whereas Section 42 provides that an earlier judgment is relevant if it relates to matters of public nature relevant to the inquiry, but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

-- Two proceedings are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 30-34)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (1) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 13 – Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- A wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. Rohtash Singh’s case (2000) 3 SCC 180, relied.

(Para 38)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) – Bailable warrants in DV Act matter – Permissibility of -- Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order -- Learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.

(Para 5)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), 25 -- Divorce – Desertion – Cruelty -- Long separation – Maintenance/ Permanent alimony -- Parties living separately for two decades -- Prolonged separation, creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably broken down -- Parties have not shared a marital life since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed -- Length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived -- Cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage -- Respondent husband to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the appellant as permanent alimony and an additional Rs. 50,00,000/- to their daughter for her education and future expenses, such as her marriage – Divorce, upheld.

(Para 16, 30-41)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 53 -- Maintenance to wife – Charge over property – Preferential right of wife -- No objection of any secured creditor, operational creditor or any other claim shall be entertained opposing the entitlement of the respondents for maintenance -- This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, which in turn flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1) – Hindu Women’s right to maintenance -- Absolute property of woman -- Right of maintenance is sufficient for the property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of the HSA, 1956.

(Para 9.4)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1) – Hindu Women’s right to maintenance -- Hindu Women’s right to maintenance is not by virtue of statute, but is found in Shastric Hindu law; maintenance has to be proper, appropriate and adequate, giving the woman so maintained the ability to continue to live the life, similar to what she once lived; and that the very right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance.

(Para 10)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) , Section 12 – Maintenance to wife/ children – Wife started earning – Effect of -- In case the wife in order to meet the responsibilities of herself and her two children started working at some place to make additional income, cannot be a reason for the husband to escape his liability to pay the maintenance.

(Para 6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance to wife -- Divorce petition pending – Applicant is to be treated as the legally wedded wife of the respondent till the marriage between them is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce -- Maintenance cannot be denied to her simply on the ground that the respondent has filed a petition for declaring the marriage as a nullity – Husband earning Rs. 2,47,661/- and he was getting Rs.1,38,546/- after the deduction of PF and income tax -- Maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive.

(Para 16, 19)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Interim maintenance to wife – Challenge to -- In the affidavit of assets and liabilities, the petitioner claimed his monthly pension as Rs.32,000/- -- Respondent placed on record, injunction order reflecting him a beneficiary in respect of the land measuring 17-14-08 bighas, which he claimed (therein) to be in his ownership and joint possession -- It was clearly evident that the petitioner had not revealed the details of his immovable properties -- Respondent is aged more than 70 years -- Award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be at the higher side -- No interference is called for.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- Arrears of maintenance more than 1 year -- Warrant for realisation -- Learned Magistrate proceeded to issue a warrant for recovery of maintenance for the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- which admittedly is arrears of maintenance of more than one year -- Once the arrears of maintenance of one year were paid, nothing survived in the petition and the warrant of realization of Rs.1,20,000/- could not have been issued by the learned Magistrate – Order set aside.

(Para 1, 9, 10)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 1 -- Statement of Objects and Reasons – It was enacted to provide for institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons as well as to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens -- The “Act” aims to give more attention to the care and protection of older persons while envisaging simple, inexpensive and speedy procedure for the protection of their life and property -- The Act further casts a duty upon the State to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live their lives with security and dignity -- The Act is a special legislation and its provisions have to be construed liberally to further its primary objective to ensure social justice to the abused parents and senior citizens.

(Para 24-29)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 2(f) -- Right to property – Ownership of property – Interpretation of -- Petitioner is in possession over the property in question through her husband, who had accrued the right over the property by way of a Will executed by the petitioner’s mother-in-law in favour of her husband -- Respondent no.2 argues that the petitioner does not have the sole ownership over the property and the property is held jointly by respondent no. 2/ niece as well, thus, the petitioner not being the owner lacks any right to seek eviction – Held, term “property” as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act, includes any ‘right or interest in such property’ and is not limited to ownership of the property.

(Para 31)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 2(f), 4, 22 -- Uttarakhand Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011, Rule 19 – Power to order eviction -- Duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity -- The term ‘security and dignity’ is to be construed in wider terms and cannot be subjected to any limitations that may have frustrate the objective of the “Act” -- The term ‘security’ can be understood in terms of security of his/her place of residence – Power to order ‘eviction’ is implicit in it and holding it contrary would frustrate the very purpose for which the Act was enacted.

(Para 35)

D. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 3, 22, 27 -- Eviction of niece – Maintainability of -- Civil suits between parties pending – Effect of --  Petitioner, is an old-aged lady in her late seventies, who is stated to have been suffering from serious ailments and is presently undergoing Dialysis; she is currently on ventilator -- Respondent no. 2/ niece interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s property thereby endangering her life -- Court deemed it just and proper that justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to enjoy her property without any hindrance -- Maintenance Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction against niece  -- Rights of the parties over the property is sub-judice before the civil court is concerned, it has no bearing to the facts of the case -- Application filed by the petitioner against the respondent no. 2/ niece was clearly maintainable -- Respondent no.2 is directed to vacate the property in question within a week.

(Para 36-45)

E. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 22 -- Eviction without seeking maintenance – Maintainability of -- ‘Maintenance’ and ‘eviction’ are two separate remedies which fall under two different chapters of the Act and to hold that availing one of the remedy is a must to avail the other, would not be in the line with the Scheme of the Statute -- Thus, claiming ‘maintenance’ is not a prerequisite to seek ‘eviction’ under the Act -- Petitioner seeking ‘eviction’ of respondent no. 2 was clearly maintainable even in the absence of any claim for maintenance.

(Para 43)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance – Loan upon husband – Ground of -- Petitioner/husband paying Rs. 5,000/- to wife and daughter u/s 12 of DV Act -- Court by the impugned order increased the maintenance to Rs. 7,500/- -- No detailed discussion made as to why the amount has been increased, but it, per se, does not invalidate the order -- After deduction, the salary of the revisionist is Rs. 28,241/- -- Taking loan may not be a ground, per se, to reduce the amount of maintenance – Held, the amount of interim maintenance is not excessive – Revision dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 1 -- Applicability to all religions -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman irrespective of religious affiliation or social background -- The same was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of ‘domestic violence’ in ‘domestic relationship’.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125(4) – Constitution of India, Article 51A(f) -- Maintenance to wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Wife not want to serve old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law -- One of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause -- In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture’ -- It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture -- It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law – Wife not entitled for maintenance.

(Para 17, 21, 22, 28)

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (25 of 1986), Preamble, Section 2, 3, 4 – Maintenance to muslim divorced wife – Re-marriage – Effect of -- The  word ‘remarry’ is absent in section (3) – In other words the Act seeks to prevent the destitution of Muslim Women and ensure their right to lead a normal life even after a divorce – Protection referred to in the MWPA is unconditional -- Essence of the Act is that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance regardless of her remarriage.

(Para 22)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case – Cancellation of transfer  deed – Subsequent purchaser during pendency of proceedings -- In case a person is a purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of a case then the said purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the said person, at best, can only raise pleas which are available to the seller(s) in whose shoes he has stepped into.

(Para 7)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case – Cancellation of transfer deed – Plea that petitioners are now ready to take care of respondent No.3 is apparently an afterthought -- Once the necessary ingredients of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, are met and the order is passed in accordance with law, the said plea of the petitioners would not call for setting aside the said order.

(Para 8)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Ad-valorem court fee – Charge for maintenance -- Suit for grant of maintenance and for declaration that the plaintiffs have charge and creating charge over the properties and further for declaration that transfer deeds with regard to immovable property are illegal and null and void -- Proceedings initiated before the Family Court for the purpose of maintenance are petition in nature and not suit -- Petitioners are not liable to pay the ad valorem court fee.

(Para 2, 12, 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to wife – High Court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Trial Court to Rs. 1,000/- per month -- No justification for reduction to such extreme lower limit – High court order set aside, Trial Court order awarding Rs. 5,000/ per month as maintenance restored.

(Para 3-5)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Domestic violence case – Speedy disposal – Case of 2019 -- Petitioner is a senior citizen of 82 years of age, falls in a distinctive category, qua which directions have been given by High Court, from time to time, for expeditious disposal of the matters relating to the senior citizens i.e. who are 65 years of age or above – Ld. Lower Court shall remain sensitized about the said instructions and proceed further to decide the application for interim relief and to hear the arguments on the application on 04.08.2023 and if not possible to hear the arguments on the said date, the same shall be heard and decided, within a period of one week thereafter – Ld. Lower Court shall ensure expeditious disposal of the main petition.

(Para 4, 5)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 16(1) -- Right to appeal – An appeal would be maintainable on behalf of any affected party -- Observation in the impugned order to the effect that the appeal has been filed by a person who is not senior citizen and is not maintainable under the Act, is illegal and perverse and in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench -- Appeal partly allowed and the impugned order set aside and the appellate authority directed to hear the appeal afresh and to decide the same in accordance with law. Paramjit Kumar Saroya’s case 2016(3) RCR (Civil) 146 = 2014(2) L.A.R. 146 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 11746 relied.

(Para 5)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 16 -- Return of appeal – Power of -- Appeal against order of dismissal of eviction application passed by Maintenance Tribunal -- Held, office of the appellate Tribunal cannot refuse to put up the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal -- Question as to whether the said appeal is maintainable or not or whether the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritorious or not, are to be considered by the Appellate Tribunal – Writ petition dispose of by giving liberty to petitioner to file an appeal u/s 16 of the Act of 2007 – On filing of appeal, the office of the Appellate Tribunal would put up the case for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal as expeditiously as possible -- Appellate Tribunal would decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(Para 6-8)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 9, 16, 23 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Letter patents Appeal -- Death of senior citizen – Benefits under Senior citizen Act stands abated on his death -- As senior citizen/ respondent No.2, at whose instance the Maintenance/ Appellate Tribunal had passed the impugned order, had since expired, so the proceedings in the case are rendered infructuous/ otiose as senior citizen's right to seek benefits under the special statute abated on his death -- Parties/ legal heirs of respondent No.2 are given the liberty to avail the civil remedy available under law.

(Para 9)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(iii) – Divorce -- Unsoundness of mind -- Standard of proof -- Standard of proof in such case is very high -- Depending on the social set up of the parties and surroundings in which the parties live, the allegations can also be established by preponderance of evidence.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(iii) – Divorce -- Unsoundness of mind -- Mental disorder cannot be a sole ground to grant decree of divorce, but it must further be proved that it is of a such nature as the appellant/ husband cannot reasonably expected  to live with the respondent -- There has been abnormal aggressive and serious irresponsible conduct done by the wife -- Husband cannot live with the wife because of periodical mental illness, which is rash behaviour, order to stay by force would amount to mental cruelty – Photographs admitted to be that of wife reflects that it was an aggressive expression, not normal, which corroborates the statement given by the husband -- Marriage solemnised between the parties dissolved by decree of divorce.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(iii), 25 – Divorce -- Permanent alimony -- Husband getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month, daughter is with the appellant/husband -- Considering the inflation; circumstances; and also to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, court deemed it appropriate that Rs.8,000/- per month maintenance to the wife henceforth as a permanent alimony -- Deduction shall be made from source and would be paid to the account of wife -- As and when the salary is reciprocally increased, subsequently the amount of maintenance shall also be increased proportionally to the percent and extent of increase in future salary.

(Para 20, 21)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14, 15(1)(c) – Arrears of maintenance – Death of wife – Mother of wife impleaded as party -- In view of Section 15(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, mother is entitled to the property of her daughter -- Arrears of maintenance accrued till the death – Ld. Judge rightly impleaded the mother of the deceased daughter (wife of the petitioner) in the petition for arrears of maintenance – Revision against impleadment as party dismissed.

(Para 1, 2, 15)

Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 19(4) – Meager interim maintenance – Expedite disposal of main maintenance petition – Prayer for -- Petitioners submit that income of respondent-husband is admittedly Rs.30,000/- per month whereas the Family Court has granted meagre amount of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioners i.e. wife and son -- Considering that amount of maintenance awarded i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month, the Family Court requested to expedite the disposal of determination of final maintenance.

(Para 1-3)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23(1) – Gift deed -- Transfer to be void -- Deed of Gift can be declared as void and be revoked if the transferee refuses to care for and look after the basic needs of the transferor where the Deed contains a specific condition for such -- Transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made through coercion and in a fraudulent manner and the transferor shall have the option of seeking the transfer to be declared as void by the Tribunal.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23(1) – Gift deed – Subsequent declaration/ undertaking to serve senior citizen/ transferor by transferee --  Effect of -- Deed of Gift did not contain any specific condition that the petitioner (transferee) would look after the needs of the respondent no. 6 (transferor) -- However, the Deed of Gift was followed by a declaration within 7 days, signed by both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 as the transferor that the petitioner would look after the food, daily needs and medical requirements of the respondent no. 6 – Declaration/ undertaking should be taken as a continuation and part and parcel of the Deed of Gift -- Transferee/ petitioner cannot take advantage of the first deed and urge that the transferee has no such obligation since the specific clause as required by section 23(1) is contained in the declaration.

(Para 6-8)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance under DV Act – Refusal and neglect -- Domestic violence is sine qua non for the reliefs to be granted to the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act -- Ld. ASJ affirmed the finding of the ld. JMIC for non-commission of domestic violence, but held that the husband refused and neglected to maintain the respondent/ wife and granted her the maintenance -- Considering the concept of refusal and neglect and granting the maintenance to wife in D.V. Act case is out of jurisdiction and exaggeration, order passed by the ld. ASJ quashed and set aside.

(Para 4, 9)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31 – Proceedings under DV Act – Nature of -- Proceeding u/s 12 of the DV Act is not an offence coming within the purview of Section 31 of the said Act - Ld. Magistrate(s) dealing with cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 would take note that proceedings initiated u/s 12 seeking reliefs u/s 18 to 23 are civil in nature.

(Para 19, 31)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 12, 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 200, 202, 204 -- Proceedings under DV Act – Nature of -- Warrant against respondent -- Application u/s 12 of the DV Act is not a ‘complaint’ as defined u/s 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., but an ‘application’ and as such, proceedings u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not to be followed -- On an application u/s 12 being filed, the Magistrate has to cause issue of Notice u/s 13 and to call for response from the respondent -- Action of the learned Magistrate in the issuance of a warrant against the petitioner/respondent is also uncalled for.

(Para 19-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to wife – Challenge to -- Petitioner is BDS running a private clinic -- Petitioner unable to furnish any evidence disclosing that wife is working and actually earning -- In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is highly improbable to believe that respondent is working and earning to the extent that she is able to maintain herself -- Petitioner is a qualified dental doctor and he is morally, ethically and statutorily duty bound to maintain his wife and daughter -- Amount of maintenance awarded is interim maintenance and petitioner shall get an opportunity to put forth his stand at the time of determination of final maintenance -- Family Court is expected to look into status of the wife especially her financial status prior to passing of final order -- No interference warranted – Petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11 -- Nullity of marriage – Maintainability of petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – FAO is pending, no stay against decree whereby marriage stands declared null and void -- Thus, as on date relation of husband wife does not exist between petitioner and respondent – Held, Family Court rightly dismissed petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order, thus, no interference is warranted – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 5-9)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) , Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of summoning u/s 12 of D.V. Act -- Application u/s 12 cannot be equated with complaint or initiation of prosecution and it is not like cognizance of offence or issue of process by Magistrate warranting petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- In the absence of any adverse order, it is not appropriate on the part of Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdictional power to quash the complaint which is mere a bundle of allegations -- Petition dismissed,

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12(1)(c) – Interim maintenance to wife – Petition for annulment of marriage – Effect of -- Filing of the petition for annulment of marriage in itself cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance – Look after old parents by husband – Ground of -- Petitioner-husband required to take care of his old parents cannot be a ground to avoid his responsibility towards the respondent-wife.

(Para 3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 127 – Enhancement of maintenance – From the date of application or order -- Argument that amount of maintenance in terms of Section 127 Cr.P.C. can be enhanced only from the date of passing of order is misplaced -- Respondent indubitably preferred application seeking enhancement in 2014 which remained pending till 2021 and for this long delay of non-adjudication, the respondent cannot be deprived of her substantial right of maintenance.

(Para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 407, 482 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) , Section 12 -- Petition u/s 12 of DV Act – Transfer of case – Objection to jurisdiction -- Ground of  -- Objection to the jurisdiction of trial Court to try the application in itself is not a ground to file the petition seeking transfer of the application -- Provisions of Section 407 or 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to for getting-over the objection to jurisdiction of a particular Court to try the application/case.

(Para 3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 127, 128 – Execution of maintenance u/s 125/ 127 Cr.P.C – Jurisdiction --  Harmonious and beneficial interpretation -- An order of maintenance may be enforceable at the place where the person against whom it is made, the court which passed the order also retains power to execute the order, outside the jurisdiction where the respondent has been residing.

(Para 16, 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Lumpsum alimony by way of compromise – Maintainability of maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr. P.C after 13 years -- It cannot be ignored petitioner filed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for the first time after a gap of more than 13 years -- Not possible for a lady and her two children to survive in a meager amount of Rs.3 lacs which was given to them by petitioner-husband in pursuance of compromise – Petitioner-wife is now about 62 years of age, already retired from her service -- During this period, the prices have increased many folds -- Held, petitioner-wife was justified in filing the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance to look after her unmarried daughter as well as for her own survival -- Maintenance granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge @ Rs.15,000/- per month is fully justified and it does not require any interference.

(Para 13, 14, 17)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19 -- Maintenance to grandchildren --  Interpretation of word widow -- Family Court directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2,000/- each to his three grandchildren – The 1956 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted in order to take care of the destitute daughter-in-law who, on account of unfortunate circumstances, becomes a widow -- The word “widow” would include the minor grandchildren who are staying with their mother -- No ground to interfere with the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19, 21, 22, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Liability of mother-in-law --  Rejection of plaint -- Contention that petition u/s 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law -- Under common law, if the grand mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision also dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to wife/ child -- Petitioner is a young man of 34 years of age, who cannot shirk from the responsibility as a husband as well as a father of financially supporting his wife and child, even though, they are not staying with him and the relations between them are strained -- By merely pleading that respondent/ wife is a graduate, working as a teacher and earning income from tuition, he cannot absolve himself from his marital obligation -- Even if, respondent/ wife is educated that does not defeat her right to claim maintenance, more particularly, when she has a young school going daughter to take care of.

(Para 4)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Notice without Domestic incident report -- Domestic incident report is not mandatory -- Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity by issuing notice to the petitioner without waiting for the report of Protection Officer.

(Para 13)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 127 -- Acquittal u/s 498A IPC – Award of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Acquittal u/s 498A IPC will not create a bar for his wife to seek relief under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Payment of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. or other application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. will not effect the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the respondent can claim maintenance under the one case subject to adjustment of maintenance already paid by him.

(Para 14, 15)

C. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468 – Application u/s 12 of DV Act, 2005 after more than 8 years – Limitation -- Violation of any order passed under the DV Act is punishable u/s 13 of D.V. Act, 2005 -- Mere filing of complaint u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act not barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C -- This section will come into operation when any order passed u/s 12 of the Act is violated – Petition seeking quashing of complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 dismissed. Kamatchi’s case 2022(2) L.A.R. 222 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16975 relied.

(Para 16-19)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Relevant date of maintenance if order is silent – Clarification by Executing court -- Order awarding maintenance do not specify as to from which date the amount of maintenance awarded is payable -- Executing Court clarified after hearing both the parties on the issue, that the amount of maintenance is payable from the date of the application and not from the date of the order – Held clarification is as per the law settled. Rajnesh’s case, 2021(1) L.A.R. 311 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15586 relied.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Matrimonial discord -- Transfer of case – Lucknow to Delhi -- Since two cases (HMA and DV Act) are already pending in the Delhi Courts in which respondent No.1 and her family members have already put their appearance and the petitioner, in the first case, on account of financial constraint, is likely to face hardships in travelling to Lucknow to defend herself in the Criminal Complaint – Transfer Petitions allowed.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Maintenance in two proceedings -- Appellant-wife has been granted two separate maintenance claims i.e. one at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by the JMIC u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and the second at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Civil Judge, Senior Division u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Appellant-wife looking after her two children born out of the wedlock -- High Court while passing the impugned order has held that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, granted to the appellant-wife, will also include Rs.3,000/- per month granted to her u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Appellant and the two children cannot sustain with this meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- -- Held, such an approach of the High Court is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance law – Assessment of income -- Income tax Return -- Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income – It is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance – Deposition of wife – Non-cross-examination by husband – Effect of -- Right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants -- Allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version -- Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the respondent.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance – Able-bodied husband -- Respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child -- Rs.10,000/- per month awarded to the appellant-wife from the date of filing maintenance petition over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the son.

(Para 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance -- Objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure financial support to the estranged wife -- Further, the objective behind granting maintenance is not to punish a person but rather support the relations who have a moral right to be supported -- The most important precondition for Section 125 Cr.P.C. to become operative is the condition that the wife is unable to maintain herself and that the husband has neglected or refused to maintain his wife.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 127, 125 -- Alteration of maintenance – An adjudicated order u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is a precondition for making an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. -- Once an application has been filed u/s 125 and a maintenance amount has been granted, an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. can be filed to claim alteration of the maintenance so awarded owing to change in circumstance -- Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not a stand-alone provision as the same requires a decision granting maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

(Para 6)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 127, 125 -- Alteration of maintenance – Change in circumstances -- Term “change in circumstances” as referred to in Section 127(1) not only includes a change in the financial circumstances of the husband or wife but may also include other circumstantial changes in the husband’s or wife’s life which have arisen since the maintenance was first awarded.

(Para 6)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 127 – Maintenance -- Res judicata -- Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. will be covered by the principle of res judicata -- In order to avoid re-adjudication of the same issue, the legislature has enacted Section 127 Cr.P.C. to deal with change in circumstances after passing of an order granting maintenance.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Maintenance to wife – Relinquishment of right to maintenance – Effect of -- Even if the wife executes an agreement relinquishing her right to receive any maintenance in future, that would be contrary to the public policy and unenforceable, and that she would be entitled to seek for maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself.

(Para 27)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Maintenance to wife/ daughter – Admitted fact on record that the husband is a software professional working at Singapoor at the time of marriage -- Case of the defendant / husband is that subsequently he lost job and that presently he is an un-employed -- When he is pleading that he is unemployed, he has to prove the same, which he failed – Irresistible conclusion that has to be drawn is that the defendant having sufficient means, failed to maintain the plaintiffs -- Plaintiff No.1/ wife claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the 2nd plaintiff/ daughter is reasonable and the same requires to be granted – In all they are held entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 09.10.2003.

(Para 28-32)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance petition by wife not by child – DNA test of child – Requirement of -- Petitioner claimed maintenance from the respondent on the ground that she is his legally wedded wife and a child was born out of the wedlock -- No claim on behalf of the minor -- Petitioner, on the basis of evidence which she chooses to lead has to establish her marriage as the same is being disputed by the respondent – Held, determining the paternity of the child is not the moot point -- Order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to undergo a blood test is not warranted -- Petition allowed, impugned order passed by the learned Family Court set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Hindu woman’s right to maintenance -- Absolute right of Hindu Woman on property -- Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of the said property -- She is entitled to retain the possession of that property in lieu of her right to maintenance -- Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by the said legislation – Facts and circumstances clearly established that she had long settled possession of the suit property, which she had acquired in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, prior to the commencement of the Act of 1956, which entitled her to become a full owner of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act – Her pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with her settled legal possession of the property, would be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a vestige of right or claim in the property, though no document was executed or specific charge was created in her favour recognizing her right to maintenance in the property – Held, High Court had rightly held that she had pre-existing right to maintenance in the suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956.

(Para 14-21)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(f), 12, 29 -- Domestic violence case – Alternative remedy – Inherent powers of High Court -- High Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition u/s 482 of the Code and the statutory remedy of appeal under the DV Act would not be an embargo in exercise of such power.

(Para 6-7)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(f), 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Domestic relationship -- Domestic violence case against in-laws – Maintainability of – Quashing under inherent power of High Court --  Allegations leveled may attract the offences under the IPC, but in order to invoke the jurisdiction under the DV Act, it is necessary that the parties should be in a “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2 (f) of the DV Act -- Tone and toner of the complaint shows that the primary allegation by the respondent is against her husband -- Occasional visit by the petitioners to the matrimonial house of the respondent would not bring it within the four corners of the definition of domestic relationship or shared household -- Petitioners, both of whom are more than 75 years of age, do not have any domestic relationship nor have they lived together in a share household with the respondent and the institution of the complaint against them under the provisions of the DV Act is an abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be set aside -- Accordingly, the petition allowed -- Complaint u/s 12 of the DV Act as well as all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Constitution of India, Article 20(3) -- Maintenance – Salary slip – Court asking the respondent/ husband to produce his salary slip -- Protection granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not apply to the respondent.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Maintenance – Salary slip – Right to privacy -- Asking the husband to produce his salary slip cannot be termed as violation of his privacy -- Since, the respondent has refused to place his salary slip on record, Court may draw an adverse inference against the respondent.

(Para 16)