The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition that raised the question as to whether a wife living with her husband in his house is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [Sitaram v. Anita]..Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued notice in the matter, subject to the petitioner husband depositing 50 per cent of the arrears of maintenance awarded by the family court, within 45 days..The Court was of the view that a woman who was illiterate and had no means of livelihood, living with her husband in the same house, would be rendered remediless in such a situation."She can be deserted even in the same house which is why maintenance has to be granted," the Court observed.It further noted that the primary ingredient in Section 125 of the CrPC was not the 'separation of husband and wife' but a 'proof of neglect' and a 'refusal to maintain the wife.'The matter will be heard next on February 10, 2022. .The petitioner husband was a retired Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus assistant traffic inspector (ATI) receiving a monthly pension of ₹30,042. He was a widower whereas the respondent wife was a divorcee. The petitioner claimed that in 2018, he had given his wife a lumpsum of ₹5 lakh out of his gratuity amount, which she allegedly spent in a year. This showed that there was no neglect on his part, the petitioner contended..According to the plea, in December 2020, his wife started demanding more money from him and allegedly threatened him with dire consequences in case he refused to do so. She then preferred a maintenance petition along with an application seeking interim maintenance of ₹60,000 and ₹30,000 respectively. The family court had awarded interim maintenance of ₹10,000 to the wife, after which the petitioner approached the High Court in appeal.In this regard, the petition stated,"The impugned order has inter alia, complete ignored (i) the case-laws cited by the petitioner which hold that separation of husband and wife is a pre-requisite to seek Maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C,; and the impugned order also ignores that (ii) in the absence of prima facie proof of 'neglect' or 'refusal to maintain' on behalf of the petitioner- husband, the application of the respondent- wife seeking interim Maintenance cannot be allowed.".Despite the fact that the respondent is still residing in the petitioner's house and all her needs and expenses are taken care of by the petitioner, the family court awarded her interim maintenance, the petition stated..It was submitted that if the wife wishes to seek the twin reliefs of maintenance and living in the husband's house, then her remedy would lie under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, as opposed to Section 125 of the CrPC. It was stated that the text of Section 125 requires "separation" of the husband and wife as prerequisite for awarding maintenance."A bare reading of the pleadings shows that the maintenance petition is frivolous and has been filed by the respondent at the behest of her brother in order to extort money as well as various other immovable properties owned by the petitioner including the house in which they are currently residing," it was argued..On these grounds, the petitioner sought a direction to set aside the family court order and to quash the maintenance proceedings pending before the lower court..Advocates Tushar Mahajan and Rohan Yadav appeared for the petitioner.
