Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:58 am
(1) In Ravinder Haribhau Karamkar V/s Shaila Ravinder Karamkar, 1992, Cr. L.J. 1845 (Bombay) – in this reference case, it was held that during the pendency of a filed regular civil court petition under Section 24 of HMA, wife also simultaneously filed a parallel petition under 125 Cr.P.C. of the Code. It was held that the petitioner wife could not be allowed to ride two different horses at the time (two simultaneous proceedings in two different courts) and could not be permitted to continue the maintenance proceedings under section 125 Cr. P.C. when she has already chosen the alternative remedy by filing first a regular civil court suit for maintenance. It is well established that the judgment of the civil court shall prevail over the judgment of the criminal court. The natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different courts.
(2) In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.
(3) In Aleamma Mathew Vs C.M. Mathew, 2004, Case No. 80/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that bare reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that a person who is able to maintain onself is not entitled to maintenance under this provision. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitione no. 1 is employed in the private establishment and is earning about Rs. 9000/- per month. Since petitioner no. 1 is able to maintain herself, she is not entitled to the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
(4) In Namita Rani Bose V/s Dipak Kumar Bose, 1982 (2) H.L.R. 58 (AII.) – it was observed that the phrase "unable to maintain herself" means unable to earn a livelihood. This obviously means that the earning is such that the wife can maintain herself without depending upon others. But merely because she is earns a paltry sum by engaging herself in some profession, which may not even be sufficient to give one meal a day, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself with the income she earns. The income should be such which is sufficient for an ordinary person to be maintained out of it.
(5) In Zubedai V/s Abdul Khader, 1978 Cr. L. J. 1460 (Bombay) – it states that, Karnataka High Court has taken a contrary view in case of Zubedai holding the petitioner must positively aver in her petition that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and he has neglected to maintain her.
(6) In Kavita Vs. Gurdit Singh,2005, Case No. 76/03,Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioners have to furnish evidence to show that the respondent is actually running several business. Thus the petitioners have not able to prove an essential requirement of the provision.
(7) In Geeta Vs Rakesh, 2005, Case No. 703/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has been unable to show that she is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient cause or that the respondent has refused to maintain her.
(8) In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.
(9) In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.
(10) In Neeta Vs Vijay Kumar, 2005, Case No. 259/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that based on submissions of the petitioners the petitioners have failed to prove their averments, having not led any evidence in support of their case.
(11) In Kiran Vs Amar Singh, 2005, Case No. 52/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner no. 1 does not wish to reside with her husband. She has also not been able to assign any cause, much less a sufficient cause for not wanting to stay together at the matrimonial house. The respondent on the other hand, is willing to keep and maintain her. The respondent is, therefore, not guilty of having neglected or refused to keep and maintain the petitioner no. 1. As the petitioner no. 1 left the society of the respondent and refused to join his company, she is not entitled to the relief of maintenance allowance.
Found some helpful S. 24 HMA citations.> >
(1) (Dr. N. G. Dastane Vs. Sucheta Dastane)> (AIR 1975, SC 1574 = 1975 (3) SCR 967 DMC 1981 (1) 293)> > It states as: What standard of proof requires to prove "Cruelty"?> In case of Dastane Vs. Dastane, the Supreme Court held that, the normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities, he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved.> > Section 23 of H.M. Act confers on the court the power to pass a decree if it is "satisfied" on matters mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) of the Section. Considering that proceedings under the Act are essentially of a civil nature, the work "satisfied" must mean "satisfied on preponderance of probabilities" and not "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt". Section 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases.> > "Condonation" means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute Condonation, there must be two things: Forgiveness and Restoration.> > Sex plays on important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors which lead to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment. Where, therefore there is evidence showing that the spouses led a normal sexual life even after a series of acts of cruelty by one spouse then that is clear proof of Condonation of cruelty by the other spouse.> > Further, held that intercourse, of course, is not a necessary ingredient of Condonation because there may be evidence otherwise to show that the offending spouse has been forgiven and has been received back into the position previously occupied in the home. But, intercourse in circumstances as obtain here would raise a strong inference of Condonation with its dual requirement, forgiveness and restoration.> > Held, that where Condonation is not pleaded as a defence by the respondent, it is the duty of the court to find out whether the cruelty was condoned by the petitioner in view of the provisions of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the H.M. Act, which casts an obligation on the court to consider the question of Condonation, an obligation which has to be discharged even in undefended cases.> > ------------ --> >
(2) (Kamini Gupta vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta) AIR.1985 Del 241 = 1985 C.C.C 165 D M C 1985 (1)P 136> > It states as: Wife making unfounded allegations with an intention to hurt her husband – As to womanizer, drunkard etc., Husband entitled to a decree of divorce on ground of wife's mental cruelty.> > The parties were married on 6-6-1971. On 19-6-78 they separated and have since then been living apart. There are four daughters of the marriage. They are in the custody of the husband. The husband filed the petition for divorce in June 1979 on the ground of cruelty alleging that at a meeting held on 3-7-78 in the presence of the parties relations when negotiations for the resettlement of the parties were a foot, the wife last her temper and started abusing him and called him a heavy drunkard. She complained in the meeting that the husband has been bringing girls in the matrimonial home. As a result of the imputations and accusations, the talks of reconciliation broke down. Thus, was the husband's positive case in the petition.> > In her written statement the wife replied that she never falsely accused the character of petitioner's suggesting there by that the charges leveled against the husband were not false.> > When the case came for trial, the wife in her evidence repeated these charges times out of number. She named three girls namely – Rupa, Mamta and Alka Sayal, with whom the husband had extra-marital relations. About Rupa, the wife said that she was a cabaret. When the parents of husband were away to Simla, one night the husband brought Rupa to the house and started drinking with her. The wife was present. Afterwards, the husband wanted to "indulge in sex" with Rupa. This the wife could not stand. So in utter disgust, she withdrew herself from the room the husband and Rupa were stayed for the whole night, she says.> > About Mamta, the wife said that Mamta ill-reputed girl, worked in the husband's office in kamlanagar, and she said that she have seen Mamta herself when she came to our house.> > About Alka, the wife narrated that the husband had married and she was pregnant from him.> > The trial judge disbelieved the evidence of wife.> > It is observed that the husband's father was at the relevant time an Additional District judge in Delhi, just opposite the husband's father's flat was the flat of their near relations. In this environment, it seems most unlikely that the husband will bring a cabaret dancer to the flat who will stay through out the night in the house in wife's presence. The case of husband's sexual relationship with Mamta and Alka equally remained unproved. There is no cogent evidence on record that the husband was a philanderer or that he was flirting with girls or dangling after women.> > Found that the charges of immorality leveled by the wife are reckless in the extreme and entirely baseless.> > Held, that any man with reasonable self-respect and power of endurance will find difficult to live with a taunting wife when such taunts are in fact insults and indignities Human nature being what it is, a reasonable man's reaction to the conduct of the offending spouse is the test.> > Held that the court can not accede to her request to allow her to withdraw her allegations against the husband, as it will not do any good to their matrimonial relations.> > ------------ --> >
(3) (Urmila Devi & other Vs. Ravi Prakash)> (DMC 1984 (II), P.339, DEL HC.)> > It states as: Wife baselessly and falsely alleging the husband as "Drunkard, gambler & womaniser" – Amounts to cruelty.> > Parties married o 18-11-71 at Meerut and one daughter Neelam and son Neeraj born. The husband was daily traveling by train to attend his duties at Delhi.> > Husband alleged that she has never bothered to take care of the female child nor she ever tried to meet her and she has ruined the life of the husband and the minor children. In her notice, she made allegations against him and his character by saying that he was a drunkard, gambler and characterless. These allegations caused mental pain and agony in his mind which amounts to cruelty; again she repeated these same allegations in her written statement.> > > Held that, unfounded and false allegations by wife against her husband in her notice, maintenance application and in her written statement that the husband is drunkard, gambler and womanizer are the acts amounted to cruelty and as such having made such allegations, it cannot be said that she was not committing the act of cruelty to the extent required by law to be harmful and injurious for the husband.> > Further, held that – one act of cruelty is enough to dissolve the marriage and persistence is not required.> ------------ --> >
(4) (Sushil Kumar Verma Vs. Vsha)> AIR. 1987 (Del)86 = D.M.C. 1986 (2), 25, Del H.C.)=1986> AIR C.C. 890 1986 Marr L.J. 375=1986 (2) HDR. 104=1987> Mat L.R. 93.> > It states as: Wife terminated pregnancy without consent of the husband.> > The parties were married according to the Hindu rites on 23-11-1980 at Delhi. The wife is stated to have left the husband on 15-2-1981.> > The husband asserted that the wife is guilty of cruelty as she has taken steps to take the medicine and entered a Nursing Home for the purposes of terminating the pregnancy.> > The husband has deposed that he had not given his consent to the wife for the termination of her pregnancy.> > From the above facts it is quite apparent that she had got pregnant after having married the appellant husband; that she did not want this child and so she had the pregnancy terminated.> > Held, that aborting the fetus in the very first pregnancy by a deliberate act, without the consent of the husband, would amount to cruelty.> > It is already held in case reported as Deepak Kumar Arora V. Sampuran Arora, 1 (1983) D.M.C. 182; "If however, a wife undergoes abortion with a view to spite the husband, the it may, in certain circumstances, be contended that the act of getting herself aborted has resulted in a cruelty."> ------------ --> >
(5) (Manorama Vs. Karna Singh)> (D.M.C. 1983 (1) 366 (P&H)> > It states as: Wife adopted continuous disrespectful attitude towards husband and his family members – she even not attending funeral of father-in-law – Wife held guilty of mental cruelty – Divorce decreed.> > The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25th April, 1969 and out of that wedlock, a son was borned in the year 1972.> > Allegations of the husband were that the treatment of the wife towards him has been cruel in as much as, she always adopted disrespectful attitude and misbehavior towards him. She used foul filthy and abusive language towards him in the presence of his parents and other persons. She also did not pursue her domestic affairs and during all this time she used to pick up quarrels with her in laws without any reason or cause. Her behavior and attitude has always been injurious to his health and welfare. The conduct of the wife, according to the husband amount to cruelty affecting his mental peace making him unable to perform his official duty properly, and this caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband that living with her would be mental torture. Even the wife did not come to condole the death of his father who had died on 9-9-1979. Consequently, the husband filed the divorce petition on 24-9-79.> > The wife denied all the allegations of her bad conduct and cruelty towards her husband his parents, as alleged. According to her, the real bone of contention is that the husband is in the habit of taking liquor and she used to request him to give up this habit, but he used to take it ill and rebuke her.> > Held, that her conduct has been blame worthy to such an extent that she even did not attend the funeral ceremony of her father-in-law. This certainly hurt the feelings and sentiments of her husband and it appears that on that account the present petition for divorce was filed immediately within a month thereto.> > Observed that Law does not require that at the first appearance of a cruel act. The other spouse must leave the matrimonial home lest the continued cohabitation be construed as Condonation.> > Mere fact that the spouse continued to share a common home during or for some time after the spell of cruelty is not sufficient to prove Condonation… as held in Dr. N.G. Dastane's case.> ------------ --> >
(6) (Usha Vs. Vimal Kumar)> (D.M.C. 1987 (1), P.164, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife scuffled with the husband – Slapped him – she living separately and doing service & refused to come back – Her improper behavior with him.> > Parties married in 1974 and they resided together at Manasa. Thereafter, she has been residing away from her husband's home and is in service.> > Husband filed divorce suit on the ground that in 1975, he had occasion to meet her and had then directed her to accompany him, she had refused to do so and had engaged herself in marpit (scuffle) with him and had also slapped him, and had also threatened him to kill. Her behavior with him and with the persons of his family was not proper. She used to disobey his mother and she has subjected her to unbecoming behavior. She deserted him.> > Observed, that in 1977, she without seeking her husband's approval had been to Bhopal for training and thereafter is in service. All this is clearly indicative of the fact that at a very early stage she had taken a decision to live away from the conjugal home. Further, if the husband, from the very inception had any motive of divorcing her and of remarrying he could have instituted suit much earlier. He instituted the suit in 1983 when he found that there is no possibility of her returning to home.> > Held that, the words "treated with cruelty" imply harsh conduct of a certain intensity and persistence, which would make it almost impossible to operate the marriage.> > Legislature has left it to the courts to determine on the facts of each case whether the conduct amounts to cruelty and while deciding case, under this provision, courts would keep in mind the principle that relief is granted not only to protect a spouse from physical injury, but also from danger to mental health.> ------------ --> > >
(7) (Saroj Vs. Dashrath)> (D.M.C. 1986 (2) 277, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife indifferent to household duties – often go to her parents house – quarrels with husband – Got search warrant through her parent on false allegations – Caused humiliation to the husband.> > The parties were married on 10-5-1987, and they lived as husband and wife at Indore, where her parents also live. A child named Meeraj was born to them. Thereafter, the relations became strained. The wife who has been employed as a Teacher even from before the marriage, became indifferent to the household needs and would not cook the meals and would return to her parent's house which is also in Indore. On opposition by the husband, the wife used to quarrel with the husband. During the continuance of such strained relations her parents made an application u/s 100 of Cr.P.C. for issuing a search warrant for her production before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The police searched her out from the husband's house when he was out and produced before the S.D.M. who put her in rescue home and from there; she was set to liberty to her parent's house. In that proceeding, all sorts of false allegations and charges were leveled against the husband. After recording her statement, the learned S.D.M. did not find that her confinement was wrongful. However, since she wanted to keep herself away, from the husband, the aforesaid order was passed. That proceeding resulted in humiliation and mental agony.> > Held, that the wife made false accusation against the husband in the proceeding before the S.D.M. for issue of search warrant. The allegations were found to be false. In such a situation, one cannot escape concluding that the husband must have suffered lot of humiliations followed by mental agony, amounting to cruelty. The decree for divorce is therefore confirmed.> ------------ --> >
(8) (Prakashchandra Vs. Radharani)> (D.M.C. 1986 (2) 376, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife insisting the husband to provide money for her parents – Husband failing – Beating the child – Quarrelling – Falsely alleging demand of dowry by husband.> > The parties are residents of Indore and were married on 19-4-1980 according to Hindu rites. As a result of their wedlock, they have also a son. The appellant-husband alleged that the wife always treated him with cruelty. She used to insist on sparing money for payment to her parents and on refusal always quarreled with him. She expressed her annoyance by indiscriminate beating of the child. On account of her quarrelsome habit, he, on his transfer from Bhopal to Indore was forced to live separate from his parents. She however, continued pressing demands for money for her parents and on his refusal as before, she picked up quarrel with him and finally deserted him o 25-09-1981, after throwing the child at his mother. After about an hour, she came back with their parents and uncle and forcibly took away the child.> > Observed the falsity of her defince that the husband used to demand dowry of Rs. 1000 and a gold chain is exposed by the fact that she had to admit that she never mentioned about the alleged demand in any of the letters sent by her to her father. This court is legitimately entitled to draw an adverse inference by non-production of those letters and non examination of her father, though alive and available.> > Held, that she treated the husband with cruelty and she has not been able to substantiate her defence story. The husband has discharged his part of the burden that she treated him with cruelty and deserted him for more than statutory period of two years. Since, she did not justify her separate residence; the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce on both grounds viz. cruelty and desertion.> ------------ --> >
(9) (Kuldip Kaur Vs. Premsingh)> (DMC 1986 (2), 334, P&H.)> > It States as: Wife left the matrimonial house without any justification – was of un-accomadative nature – not willing to do domestic works.> > Briefly, the fact are that the parties were married on March 9th, 1980, according to Hindu rites at Bhawarigarh, Dist. Sangrur. The petitioner-husband was a Clerk in the Punjab and Sind bank at Samana, while the wife was a teacher in Govt. Girls School, Sector 21, Chandigarh.> > It is averred by the husband that the wife was of an unaccommodating nature and was not willing to do domestic work. He, therefore, had to cook meals to avoid confrontation. A son was born to the wife out of the wedlock on 25-8-1981. The husband called his mother for looking after the child, but the wife started misbehaving and picking up quarrels with her on one excuse or other. On 20-2-1982, she left his house and went to reside at her brother's house. In spite of his efforts, no compromise could be arrived at between the parties.> > Evidence with corrobation by witnesses came on record supporting the contentions of the husband.> > Held, that the wife has to share the burdens of the husband. According to our culture and heritage, it is considered to be the duty of the lady not only to look after her husband and the children, but also to look after her in-laws.> > Further, held that the wife should not have left the house of the husband on that ground.> ------------ --> >
(10) (Rajni Vs. Ashok)> (D.M.C. 1978 (1), P. 286, M.P. High Court)> > It states as: Wife causing mental tension to husband by her conduct and by her improper development of mind – Held, mental cruelty to husband.> > After marriage on 20-5-1985, the petitioner wife lived with the husband for about a month and thereafter she is living away from him. During this period the evidence on the side of the husband came on record that her conduct was not that of a person of sound mind. His version is that the resides in the upper storey of a building and the bathroom in half naked condition for the upper storey. When asked for prepare three thalis, she placed six on the table, she falsely accused one of his guest of theft of an egg etc., which evidence is supported by other witnesses.> Even the trial judge observed that according to her she has not singe the written statement, she does not know what is meant by guests, she does not know why marriage is performed and what is the relationship between the husband and wife, she does not know what is sexual intercourse she does not know with whom she used to sleep etc., her evidence clearly `proves' that the case is not one of mere dullness of intellect but goes beyond that.> > Observed that, she is suffering from mental disorder, and the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her.> > In this instant case, it is held that the wife can be said to have treated the husband with cruelty, despite her disabled mind, within the meaning of S. 13(1)(ia).> > Observed that for legal cruelty for matrimonial cause, it is not necessary that physical violence must be proved. Ordinarily treating a person with cruelty implies an intentional or willful conduct, studied neglect and indifference or calculated and conscious behavior occasioning pain to the person concerned.> > But, also already held that `cruelty' as a matrimonial offence may be found without there being the element of intention, as in case of `insanity' – (Jia Lal Abrol's case – (AIR 1978 J & K, 67)> ------------ --> >
(11) 1995 (II) DMC 444> 1995 (II) HLR 97 Meena Rani Vs. Madanlal> (Punjab & Haryana) Justice: Gharjavani> > It states as: Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Husband's divorce case on ground of cruelty and desertion – wife left matrimonial home without any reasonable ground – she was employed but not accounting for her salary to the husband nor disclosing where she used to spend it-staying away with her parents of and on without informing her husband – Refused to live with husband and rather the wife and her mother pressing him to live at the house of her mother as Gharjavani. Held all these acts amounts to cruelty – Trial Court rightly granted divorce in favour of husband – Appeal of wife also dismissed.> ------------ --> >
(12) 1987 (1) DMC 259> AIR 1988 Delhi page 37,> 1987 Marr. LJ 217 (1987) (I) HLR 354> Hem Chandra Misra Vs. Smt. Satyh Misra> > It states as: Sec. 13 (1)(ia)(ib) – Cruelty – wife living apart for 3 years – Husband making several efforts but she refused to came back – wife abusing towards her husband in presence of other members of the house – Her conduct amounts to cruelty.