Thanks to a reader, we have this very recent judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court which denied maintenance to wife under CrPC 125 on her appeal to HC since the court agreed with trial court’s observations that according to evidence led by husband and also wife’s own admissions, it was the wife who was not staying with him out of her own freewill.
The judgment is actually not very significant, since both evidence by way of letters of husband and wife’s own admissions proved that there was no maltreatment, and in practical cases such evidence, and wife’s own admissions are very rarely seen. Also the wife didn’t appear in HC at all for her own appeal. If any husband is lucky enough to have this kind of evidence (and a wife who admits in court to her faults 
) , of course they can make full use of it! This was how usage of CrPC 125 was intended to be, but after passing of laws like DV Act combined with the so-called ‘women empowerment’ trend, most of the time interim maintenance is granted based merely on allegations and the fact that wife is not staying with husband.
Important parts of judgment:
On the basis of aforesaid letters and admission of the applicant in her cross-examination, learned
trial Court had recorded a finding that she was never ill-treated by her husband or in-laws but she
was unable to adjust herself in her matrimonial home; therefore, she did not want to stay with her
husband and wanted to get rid of him. On the basis of her categorical admission that she had
written a letter to her father stating that she has no complaint against her in-laws but she was
unable to adjust with them; therefore, she wanted to marry somewhere else, learned trial Court
proceed to record the finding that the applicant had left her husband of her own freewill and
accord. It cannot be said that she had to leave her matrimonial home on account of any ill-
treatment, misbehavior or harassment on the part of her husband or in-laws.
On aforesaid grounds, learned trial Court held that the applicant was not entitled to any
maintenance.
Full judgment text below:
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aradhana Tiwari vs Deepak Tiwari on 16 July, 2015
CRR-604-2010
(SMT. ARADHANA TIWARI Vs DEEPAK TIWARI)
16-07-2015
None for the applicant.
Shri S.K.Mishra, counsel for the respondent.
A perusal of the record reveals that no one had appeared on behalf of the applicant to prosecute
this Criminal Revision on two previous dates, namely 06.05.2015 and 29.06.2015.
On last date, the Court had made an observation that if no one appears on next date to argue on
behalf of the applicant, the Revision Petition shall be dismissed for non-prosecution, in view of
the nature of the impugned order.
Even then, no one has appeared before the Court to argue on the matter on behalf of the
applicant. This Criminal Revision is yet to be admitted. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court
shall proceed to decide it on merits without the benefit of arguments advanced on behalf of the
applicant.
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the
Court of 1 st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, in MJC.No.01/2009, whereby
the application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
the applicant Aradhana Tiwari was dismissed on the ground that the applicant had failed to prove
that the non-applicant husband had neglected or refused to maintain her and she was staying
away from him without any reasonable and just cause.
It has been observed by learned trial Court that the non- applicant husband had filed letters
exhibit D-1 to D-4, whereby it is evident that the non-applicant husband never misbehaved with
the applicant. It was further observed that the applicant had admitted in her cross- examination
that she used to write letters to her husband that she has no problem in her matrimonial home and
she also admitted that she had written a letter from her matrimonial home to her father
expressing that she is not happy in her matrimonial home and imploring him to take her from
matrimonial home to her parental home and marry her off somewhere else. She also admitted
during the cross-examination that she has spends most of time in her parental home after the
marriage. She has also admitted that she was treated for mental ailments before her marriage and
also after it.
On the basis of aforesaid letters and admission of the applicant in her cross-examination, learned
trial Court had recorded a finding that she was never ill-treated by her husband or in-laws but she
was unable to adjust herself in her matrimonial home; therefore, she did not want to stay with her
husband and wanted to get rid of him. On the basis of her categorical admission that she had
written a letter to her father stating that she has no complaint against her in-laws but she was
unable to adjust with them; therefore, she wanted to marry somewhere else, learned trial Court
proceed to record the finding that the applicant had left her husband of her own freewill and
= Page 1 =
accord. It cannot be said that she had to leave her matrimonial home on account of any ill-
treatment, misbehavior or harassment on the part of her husband or in-laws.
On aforesaid grounds, learned trial Court held that the applicant was not entitled to any
maintenance. On perusal of record, there is no reason to take a different view in the matter; as
such, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety
warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this Criminal Revision deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE
= Page 2 =