Divorce plea as an objection would not dis-entitle wife to interim maintenance: Jammu & Kashmir HC

Merely taking a plea of divorce as an objection during the hearing of a maintenance dispute will not dis-entitle wife to interim maintenance, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court recently ruled dismissing a plea which sought quashing of a trial court order granting interim maintenance (Mushtaq Ahmad Badyari V/S Ruqaya Akhter). .In a judgment pronounced on November 12, a single-judge Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal also directed the petitioner-husband to clear the arrears of maintenance in six installments within the period of six months from date of the order. .The court was hearing a plea arising out of an application filed by the respondent-wife under section 488 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for grant of maintenance. While rejecting the petition, the High Court held that the sole purpose and object of section 488 of CrPC is to prevent the vagrancy of the wife, children and parents by compelling those who are under legal obligation to support those who are unable to support themselves..It was the wife's case that she was married to the petitioner as per Muslim rites and rituals but was turned out of her matrimonial home.In her application for interim maintenance before the Additional Special Magistrate, Awantipora, the husband had taken the stance that respondent was a divorcee and was, hence, not entitled to any maintenance under Muslim Law. .But the trial court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month as interim maintenance. This order was upheld Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama on revision resulting in the appeal before High Court. .The High Court held that merely taking a plea of divorce in the objection by the petitioner before the court by narrating that he has sent the divorce deed to his wife through registered post and the same stands received by the wife, would not dis-entitle the wife to get interim maintenance..It also ruled that though there is no provision in the section 488 Cr.P.C. (Section 125 of the Central Code) for grant of interim maintenance but as per the law laid by the Supreme Court, the courts are empowered to grant interim maintenance. In this regard. reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Savitri V/S Govind Singh Rawat.“No fault can be found with the orders passed by both trial court as well as court of revision. The trial court has rightly granted the maintenance and also the order of the trial court has rightly been upheld by the revisional court”, the Hon’ble High Court held..Advocates Shafaqat and M Ashraf Wani, were pleading on behalf of the respondent(s), while the petitioner was represented by Advocate Musaib.