SMT. VANAMALA versus SHRI H.N. RANGANATHA BHATIA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 27-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. VANAMALA 
v. 
SHRI H.N. RANGANATHA BHATIA. 
JULY 27, 1995 
B 
[A.M. AHMADI, CT. AND S.C. SEN, J.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 125. 
Maintenanc~Wif~Divorce by mutual consent~eld entitled to 
C 
maintenanc~Sub-section 4-Held inapplicable to the case of a woman who 
has obtained divorce by mutual consent. 
The appellant obtained divorce by mutual consent under section 
13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Subsequently, she filed an applica-
tion under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking 
D maintenance from the respondent-husband which was dismissed by the 
Magistrate on the ground that a woman who has obtained divorce by 
mutual consent was not entitled to maintenance. The Sessions Judge held 
that the appellant was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the divorce 
by mutual consent. On revision the High Court set aside the order of the 
E 
Sessions judge and upheld the vi~w taken by the Magistrate. Against the 
decision ·or High Court an appeal was preferred before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the 
High Court, this Court 
F 
HELD : The High Court was clearly wroJlg in reversing the order 
passed by the Sessions Judge. On a plain reading of section ·us of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it seems fairly clear that the expression 
'wife' in the sub-section ( 4) does not have the extended meaning of includ-
ing a women who has been divorced. This is for the obvious reason that 
unless there is a relationship of husband and wife there can be no question 
G of a divorce woman living in adultery or without sufficient reason refusing 
to live with her husband. After divorce where is the occasion for the women 
to live with her husband? Similarly there would be no question of the 
husband and wife living separately by mutual cons~nt because after 
divorce. there is no need for consent to live separately. In the context, 
. H therefore, sub-section ( 4) of section 125 does not apply to the case of a 
380 
-.... 
I( 
VANAMALA v. H.N.R. BHATIA(AHMADI, CJ,} 
381 
woman who has been divorced or who has obtained a decree for divorce. A 
The order of the learned Sessions Judge is restored. [383-D; 382-F-H] 
Kongini Balan v. M. Visalakshy, [1986] 92 Crl. Law Journal 697 
(Ker.); Klishan Kumar v. Kiran, [1991] 1 DMC 248 (MP) and M. Ramak-
rishana Reddy v. T. Jayamma and Anr., [1992] 98 Crl. Law Journal 1368, 
approved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
No.836 of 1995. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.1991 of the Karnataka C 
High Court in C.R. 448 of 1988. 
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. 
K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
AHMADI, CJ. Special leave granted. 
The facts in brief reveal t~at the appellant married the respondent 
some time in 1970 and then gave birth to two issues from the said wedlock. 
Unfortunately, her married life was not smooth and in 1980 divorce by E 
mutual consent was obtained under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage 
Act. While granting divorce by mutual consent, no order in regard to 
maintenance or alimony was made. The decree is silent on that count. Few 
years later the appellant filed on application under Section 125 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code') seeking main-
F 
tenance from the respondent. The learned Magistrate dismissed the ap-
plication holding that a divorcee woman was not entitled to maintenance 
once it is found that the divorce was by mutual consent. Against that order 
the appellant ftled a Revision Application to the Sessions Court. The 
learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was 
entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the divorce by mutual consent and G 
remanded the matter to the Trial Court for determining the quantum of 
maintenance. Against this order of the learned Sessions judge, the respon-
dent preferred a Revision Application before the High Court and the High 
Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.8.1991 set aside the 
order of the learned Sessions Judge upholding the view taken by the H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A learned Magistrate and dismissed the application. It is against that order 
that the present appeal has been prefer~ed. 
B 
c 
Section 125 of the Code makes provision for the grant of main-
tenance to wives, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 inter 
alia says that if any person havi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.