Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Maintenance to Wife After 21 Years of Separation

September 20, 2001 : In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, led by Justice R.S. Garg, held that a woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be denied merely because she approached the court after a long delay. The court overturned concurrent findings of the trial court and revisional court that had dismissed the wife’s plea, terming those decisions as a “miscarriage of justice.”

The case involved an elderly woman who had been deserted by her husband more than two decades earlier. She had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, claiming that she was his legally wedded wife and had become destitute due to illness and lack of support. The husband argued that since she had lived independently for 21 years, she was not entitled to any maintenance. Both lower courts accepted this argument and rejected her application.

Justice Garg, however, disagreed with this reasoning. He noted that the CrPC does not prescribe any limitation period for filing a maintenance petition. The court emphasized that the right to maintenance is a continuing right and that justice should not be denied because of the passage of time. “It would be mockery of law to say that an able-bodied woman who could maintain herself for many long years, after becoming old, sick, and fragile, should not be allowed any maintenance because she did not approach the Court at her young age,” the judge observed.

The court also reaffirmed that Section 125 is a measure of social justice, intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy among women, children, and parents. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, Justice Garg underscored that welfare provisions must be interpreted compassionately to achieve their purpose.

The judgment further clarified that even if a wife does not seek maintenance for years perhaps due to hope of reconciliation, self-reliance, or family support she cannot forfeit her right to claim it later when circumstances change. The court stressed that delay cannot defeat justice, especially in matters involving basic survival and dignity.

After reviewing evidence, the High Court found that the applicant was indeed the first legally wedded wife and that her husband had since contracted another marriage. The court concluded that the wife was unable to maintain herself due to illness and lack of resources, while the husband was a man of sufficient means.

Setting aside the lower court orders, Justice Garg directed the husband to pay Rs. 500 per month as maintenance from the date of the wife’s original application filed in 1993. The amount, though modest, was the maximum permissible under the law at that time. The court also remarked that maintenance should allow a woman to live “respectfully and peacefully,” not merely survive.

This judgment reinforces the principle that justice cannot be denied by technicalities and that the courts must adopt a humane and pragmatic approach in dealing with maintenance cases, particularly those involving aged or destitute women.

Case Details : Misc. Crl. Case No. 705 of 1996, Ghurava Bai vs. Vishnuram

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Tripathi, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: M.D. Dhote, Adv.