Introduction

Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo
Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2023
Jharkhand High Court, decided on 02.02.2024
 

I. Grounds Taken by the Petitioner 
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Kachhap, challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, which had directed him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to the opposite party-wife under Section 125 CrPC from the date of application. His primary contention was that the Family Court had passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of evidence and had arrived at erroneous findings.

The petitioner argued that both parties belonged to the Oraon Scheduled Tribe community and were governed by customary laws, not the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He asserted that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home within one month of marriage without any reasonable cause and had refused to return despite repeated efforts and mediation. According to him, the wife was well-educated (post-graduate) and was under the influence of her mausa and mausi, who allegedly wanted her remarriage.

A significant ground raised was that the opposite party had conceived during marriage and had terminated the pregnancy without the petitioner’s consent, which was supported by medical prescription (Exhibit-Y/1). The petitioner further claimed that the wife made a demand of ₹75 lakhs during mediation as permanent alimony and consistently refused cohabitation. He also alleged that the wife had taken ornaments from the matrimonial home and that criminal cases filed by her were false and motivated.

Relying on Section 125(4) CrPC, the petitioner argued that since the wife had left his society without sufficient reason, she was not entitled to maintenance. He further submitted that the Family Court failed to consider the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.

II. Grounds Taken by the Opposite Party 
The opposite party-wife, Sangeeta Toppo, supported the Family Court’s order and alleged that she was subjected to cruelty, dowry demands, and neglect soon after marriage. She contended that demands for car, LED TV, and other articles were raised, and upon non-fulfilment, she was mentally and physically harassed.

She further alleged that the petitioner was addicted to alcohol and used to abuse and manhandle her. One of her major allegations was that the petitioner had an illicit relationship with one Poonam Kumari, due to which she was deprived of marital affection and dignity. According to her, this compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house.

The wife denied the allegations of pregnancy and abortion and claimed that no such medical treatment was ever undertaken by her. She asserted that she was unemployed and had no independent source of income, whereas the petitioner was a Loco Pilot in Indian Railways with substantial income and additional earnings from a marriage hall and rental properties. On these grounds, she claimed entitlement to maintenance.

III. Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
The High Court framed two key points for determination:
(i) whether the wife had left the husband’s society without reasonable cause, and
(ii) whether the maintenance awarded was disproportionate.
Upon detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court found serious contradictions in the wife’s testimony. Notably, the Court relied upon the medical prescription of Dr. Indu Chouhan (Exhibit-Y/1), which conclusively showed that the wife was pregnant in February 2015. This directly contradicted her categorical denial of pregnancy and abortion, thereby affecting her credibility.

The Court observed that the wife had stayed in the matrimonial home only for about one month and had refused to return despite several mediation attempts. Her admission that she did not wish to live with the petitioner under any circumstances and had demanded ₹75 lakhs further strengthened the petitioner’s case.
The allegation of illicit relationship was found unsubstantiated, especially in light of the testimony of Poonam Kumari and the absence of reliable corroboration. The Court also noted evidence suggesting that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause.

IV. Final Order
The High Court held that the opposite party-wife had left the society of her husband without reasonable cause and squarely attracted the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC. Consequently, she was not entitled to maintenance.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision was allowed, and the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Family Court granting maintenance of ₹15,000 per month was set aside. The Court found no necessity to examine the issue of quantum once entitlement itself was negated.