A recent judgment by the High Court of Chhattisgarh holds that where both parties have executed a mutual separation deed and the husband has been acquitted of charges under Section 498-A IPC, the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. This ruling upholds the decision of the Family Court and affirms existing legal precedent, serving as binding authority within the State’s subordinate judiciary in similar circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/1305/2025 of Smt. Kanti Kumari Patel Vs Brajesh Patel @ Monu |
| CNR | CGHC010431282025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Ramesh Sinha) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Family Court’s order; upholds existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal / Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether execution of a mutual separation deed and acquittal under Section 498-A IPC bars a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that when both spouses have executed a mutual separation deed and the wife has voluntarily taken back her belongings, coupled with the acquittal of the husband in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, the wife does not have a sufficient reason to live separately and, thus, is not entitled to maintenance. There was no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the Family Court’s rejection of the maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The applicant-wife alleged habitual cruelty, physical abuse, and a demand for money by the husband. After lodging police complaints and receiving medical treatment, she filed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, whose trial is pending. A deed of separation was signed, and she filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was denied by the Family Court, leading to the present revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts—in so far as similar facts and law are involved |
| Follows | Family Court’s finding that mutual separation and acquittal under Section 498-A IPC negate claim for maintenance |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that a voluntarily executed mutual separation deed, where the wife has taken back her belongings, indicates no sufficient reason for living separately under Section 125 CrPC.
- The husband’s acquittal under Section 498-A IPC was relied upon in denying maintenance, reinforcing the impact of such acquittal in future maintenance claims.
- Lawyers must carefully review facts of mutual separation and criminal acquittal before advising on maintenance applications under Section 125 CrPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the Family Court’s reasoning that the applicant (wife) had no sufficient reason to live separately, as evidenced by the mutual separation deed dated 11.07.2019 and her voluntary reclaiming of her belongings.
- It was noted that the Family Court also relied on the husband’s acquittal under Section 498-A IPC.
- The High Court found no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the lower court’s appraisal, and reaffirmed the settled position that such circumstances bar a Section 125 CrPC maintenance claim.
- The revision was thus dismissed for lack of merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant-wife):
- The impugned order is contrary to settled principles of law by the High Court and Supreme Court.
- The Family Court erred in failing to consider her forced execution of the separation deed and her husband’s habitual cruelty and alcoholism.
- Mediation attempts failed, and repeated complaints—including a pending Section 498-A IPC prosecution—were overlooked.
- Denial of maintenance in these circumstances is against principles of natural justice.
Respondent:
- Filed a reply denying all allegations.
- No further details of respondent’s submissions are on record, and the respondent was not represented at the revision hearing.
Factual Background
The applicant and respondent married on 18.04.2018. The applicant alleges physical and verbal abuse, demand for ₹1.2 lakh, and habitual drunkenness by the respondent. Following repeated assaults and failed attempts at reconciliation, a separation deed was executed on 11.07.2019. The applicant made multiple police complaints, received medical treatment, and filed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, with proceedings pending. On 13.07.2022, she sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, claiming her husband earned Rs. 25,000 monthly, but the Family Court rejected the claim, referring to the executed deed and the husband’s acquittal under Section 498-A IPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 125 CrPC: Interpreted restrictive—maintenance not awarded where wife executes a mutual separation deed and sufficient reason for living apart is not established.
- Section 498-A IPC: Acquittal under this section given significant weight by the court in assessing entitlement to maintenance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirmed the existing principle that a voluntarily executed mutual separation deed and acquittal under Section 498-A IPC bar maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC in the circumstances.