LexSAYGO BAI versus CHUEERU BAJRANGI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1020 SAYGO BAI v. CHUEERU BAJRANGI (Criminal Appeal No. 2169 of 2010) NOVEMBER 19, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.125(3), second proviso; Explanation - Maintenance - Claim by abandoned c wife for maintenance - Courts below relying upon the admission by the wife that she herself left the matrimonial home and when her husband came to take her back,· she refused to go back and holding that she was not entitled to maintenance - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - In the 0 wake of the admitted second marriage of the husband, wife would be entitled to claim maintenance and her earlier refusal to join the company of the husband would be of no consequence - The orders passed by the courts below were totally incorrect and on perverse appreciation of the evidence E - As regards the quantum of maintenance, since the husband was a constable in police force and earning Rs.10,000 p.m. and having other sources of income from agricultural properties, maintenance@ Rs.1,5001- per month would be a proper maintenance - Maintenance to be paid from the date F of the application - Evidence - Maintenance. Evidence: Appreciation of - Held: The court must read · whole evidence -- One stray admission cannot be read in isolation with the other evidence. G Appeal: Appeal before Supreme Court - Concurrent findings of facts by lower courts - Scope of appreciation of evidence - Held: Supreme Court does not go into the evidence where the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact - However. where the appreciation of evidence H 1020 SAYGO BAI v. CHUEERU BAJRANGI 1021 by the courts below is totally perverse, faulty and A unconscionable findings have been arrived at, the Supreme Court can certainly go to appreciate the evidence on record - Evidence. B The appellant-wife filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband-respondent for claiming maintenance for herself and for her two minor children. She pleaded that her relation was cordial with the respondent upto the year 1989. However, in the year 1990, the respondent brought second wife and started C neglecting the appellant and abandoned her and the children. The respondent claimed that it was the appellant who abandoned the matrimonial home when the younger child was 6 months old and went to her father's village. He claimed that both the children were always with him. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the D appellant had not come to the court with clean hands. The revision petition was also dismissed. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued before the High Court that the respondent had contracted second marriage only after the refusal of the appellant to join him and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court relied upon the admission by the appellant that she herself had left the house of the respondent and that her husband had come for taking her back with him to his house, but she refused to go back and, therefore, held that she failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations. E F On this ground, the High Court dismissed the petition. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the G High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. All the courts below completely misunderstood the second proviso of Section 125(3) H 1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Cr.P.C. and the Explanation thereto. Instead, the courts below relied on sub-section (4) of Section 125. They committed a very serious error of law in holding that since the appellant had left the house for 4-5 years, therefore, the respondent-husband was justified in getting married B again. The courts also erred in suggesting that since the appellant had left the house without any reason, therefore, even if the second marriage was contracted, the appellant would still not be entitled to the maintenance merely because she had left the matrimonial house earlier. This c finding was completely erroneous. The appellant very specifically stated that after the marriage till the children were born, her relationship was cordial with her husband. Thereafter, the respondent brought a second wife, where she was residing in her matrimonial home. The appellant 0 w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.