Driving Naari Programme launched in Chandigarh
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a plea moved by a husband to transfer the case for maintenance filed by his wife. The court observed that the husband’s intention prima facie appeared to be only to harass his wife.
“Such motive and purpose of the husband should be discouraged by the Court,” said the bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul).
The single-judge bench noted that in his revision plea, the husband said the case filed by his wife may be transferred to any court, except Burdwan, where the wife was currently residing, which prima facie proved his ill-intention.
The wife had filed the case seeking maintenance before the Burdwan Court. The husband had challenged its maintainability before the Burdwan Magistrate Court on the grounds that being a resident of Kolkata, the wife could not file an application outside its jurisdiction. However, the Judicial Magistrate had rejected the husband’s petition.
THE HUSBAND’s PLEA
Before the high court, in his revision plea, the husband stated that although the wife had filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before a police station in Kolkata, she filed the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Court (CrPC) before the Burdwan Court only to harass him.
He claimed that his wife who used to pick fights with him during their conjugal life in Hyderabad and left home to go live with her parents. He stated that in spite of all these facts and circumstances, as he wanted to live peacefully with his wife, he filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the City Civil Court at Hyderabad, however, all of a sudden, he received notice for an application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by his wife before a local court at Burdwan.
The husband further claimed that Bansdroni, Kolkata was the real residence of his wife and her father, but she filed the application for maintenance against him with an ulterior motive. He claimed that his wife wanted to put pressure on him by filing a case in Burdwan so that he would withdraw various cases that he had filed against her in Kolkata.
THE WIFE’s PLEA
On the other hand, the counsel for the wife contended that as per her voter ID, the wife was originally a resident of Burdwan, and therefore only she had filed the maintenance case there.
Regarding the case under Section 498A of the IPC filed in Kolkata, the counsel countered that at the time of lodging that case for mental and physical cruelty, the wife was residing in Kolkata, but subsequently she went back to her ancestral home in Burdwan, from where it is convenient for her to pursue her case for maintenance which is permissible under the law.
The court referred to the ruling of the Top Court in Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2004) relating to jurisdiction in terms of Section 126 of the CrPC as to where an application can be filed.It noted that as per the judgment, Section 126 of the CrPC has essentially enlarged the venue of the proceedings for maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may be residing on the date of application. “.said change was brought in taking note of the fact that often deserted wife is compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where the husband and wife last resided together,” the court noted.
