Legal Advice    Lawyers Click Here

The Allahabad High Court holds that the object of section 125 Cr PC is to prevent destitution of deserted wives and not to punish husbands for his past neglect.

Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another


Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another

The Court was dealing with the revision plea filed by challenging the judgment and order passed by Family Court, whereby the application of revisionist under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance was rejected on the ground that she is residing separately from her husband.

The Court noted that the object of the grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself and that it provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.

The Court stressed that proceedings under section 125 Cr PC are of a summary nature, and the evidence of claimant/wife seeking maintenance should not be appreciated in a manner like in criminal trials for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other substantial criminal offences.

The High Court held that the Family Court committed an error by rejecting the application of the revisionist on the ground that she is staying away from her husband without any sufficient reason and hence, the order of the court below was set aside and the matter remitted back to the family court and pass orders afresh according to law.

The Court Observed that:

"The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy," 


Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another

What can the Legal Experts do for you? Our team of lawyers is ready to help you in minutes with any legal question.

Legal AdviceWhatsapp Legal AdviceCALL NOW :- 8800110989
Latest News And Judgment
Public Query