The Calcutta High Court has held that an ex parte divorce decree obtained by a husband does not automatically extinguish his statutory obligation to maintain his former wife, provided she has not remarried and is unable to maintain herself.
However, the Court ruled that an unmarried daughter who had attained majority before filing of a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC and was not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality could not claim maintenance under the provision.
Justice Uday Kumar partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Samar Paul, challenging maintenance proceedings initiated by his wife Jyotsna Paul and subsequent execution proceedings.
The couple had married in 1995 and had two children, including daughter Sangita Paul, born in 1999. Following marital disputes and multiple proceedings, the husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree on June 20, 2022. The wife subsequently sought setting aside of the decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which remains pending.
Meanwhile, an interim maintenance order passed in 2019 directed the husband to pay Rs 3,500 per month, comprising Rs 1,500 for his wife and Rs 2,000 for their daughter.
The husband argued that the divorce had ended his obligation to maintain his wife. Rejecting the contention, the High Court referred to Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC, which includes a divorced woman who has not remarried within the definition of “wife”. Even if a husband successfully gets a divorce, it does not automatically eliminate his legal obligation to pay spousal support to his ex-wife.
The Court, however, accepted the challenge concerning the daughter. Sangita had attained majority in October 2017, nearly two years before the maintenance petition was filed, and was not suffering from any physical or mental disability.
Relying on Abhilasha v. Parkash, the Court held that a major child can claim maintenance under Section 125 only if physical or mental abnormality or injury prevents the child from maintaining herself.
The Court clarified that an unmarried Hindu daughter may have a separate remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, but that right cannot expand the scope of Section 125 CrPC.
The High Court also stayed coercive execution proceedings and distress warrants, observing that execution cannot become a “blind, punitive tool” amid disputed claims regarding the husband’s financial position.
It directed the husband to deposit 50% of the genuine accumulated arrears payable to the wife, excluding the daughter’s share, within four weeks.
The Court accordingly permitted the wife’s maintenance proceedings to continue while setting aside the maintenance award and consequential execution proceedings concerning the major daughter.
The post Divorce cannot end statutory maintenance obligation; Calcutta High Court denies section 125 relief to major daughter appeared first on India Legal.