Section 125 CrPC: Maintenance (Sanjay Damodar Kale Vs Kalyani Sanjay Kale and Anr)

Facts:

The couple got married on November 12, 1997 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremony. According to the applicant wife, since the inception of marital life the respondent husband treated her with extreme cruelty. She was dropped at her parental home at Satara in the month of January, 1999 by her husband. Despite repeated assurances, the respondent did not come to fetch her back to her marital home. Subsequently, in April, 2007 the respondent expressed his desire to obtain divorce from the applicant and they settled for mutual divorce. Despite the decree of dissolution of marriage, the respondent continued to visit the applicant at her apartment and had marital relations as well. But, from September 2012, the respondent husband stopped visiting the applicant's house. Applicant wife claimed he made no provision for her maintenance and livelihood as she has no source of income. 

The Respondent appeared and resisted the claim the applicant wife had opened a beauty parlour under the name of 'Kalyani Beauty Parlour' and had become financially independent. So she decided to forego maintenance she is entitled to under Section 125 as part of the mutual agreement before the decree of divorce was passed, the husband urged.

 

Issue: 

Can a divorced wife who has an independent source of Income can claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC?

 

Ratio Decidendi:

After considering submissions of both parties, Justice Jamdar observed-

 

"In my considered opinion in the backdrop of the material on record, the claim of the Applicant that she had no source of income ought to have been accepted by the learned Judge, Family Court with a pinch of salt. The tenor of the evidence and the material on the record suggests that the Applicant was carrying on the said business of Kalyani Beauty Parlor and Training Institute to sustain her livelihood."

 

However, at the same time, the Court also noted that the fact that the wife carries on some business and earns some money is not the end of the matter-

 

The learned Judge, Family Court was justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwa vs. Anil Kachwa." In the aforesaid judgment, the apex court had observed that merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

 

Finally, Court noted that in this inflationary economy, where the prices of commodities and services are increasing day by day, the income from the business of beauty parlor, which has an element of seasonality, may not be sufficient to support the livelihood of the applicant, and afford her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to before the decree of divorce.

 

Judgement:

Thus, Court concluded that Rs.12,000 per month would be a reasonable amount to support the applicant wife instead of Rs.50,000 as the applicant's source of income was not adequately considered by the Family Court judge.