Case Brief: Ikra Muddin v. State of U.P. & Anr.
| Case Detail | Information |
| NAME OF THE CASE | Ikra Muddin v. State of U.P. and Anr. |
| CITATION | AIR Online 2018 All 5234; Criminal Revision No. 1042 of 1996 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 17th December, 2018 |
| PETITIONER | Ikra Muddin |
| RESPONDENT | State of U.P. and Anr. (Smt. Muffida) |
| BENCH / JUDGE | Suresh Kumar Gupta, J. |
| STATUTES INVOLVED | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS | Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance |
FACTS OF THE CASE
This criminal revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1996 passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. The original case (Case No. 316 of 1994 – Smt. Muffida Vs. Ikra Muddin) was filed by Smt. Muffida under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance from her husband Ikra Muddin. The Family Court had awarded Rs. 400/- per month to Smt. Muffida for her maintenance and Rs. 250/- per month for the maintenance of her son Mohd. Jaid. Being aggrieved by this order, Ikra Muddin filed the present revision.
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Provides for the maintenance of wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether a wife who has refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- Whether the husband’s limited income (having only 1.5 bigah of land) affects his liability to provide maintenance to his wife and child.
- Whether the Family Court’s order awarding maintenance was legally justified.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER’S SIDE
- The petitioner (Ikra Muddin) argued that his wife had refused to live with him without any sufficient reason, and therefore she was not entitled to any maintenance.
- He contended that his income was very low as he possessed only 1.5 bigah of land, and therefore the opposite party was not entitled to maintenance.
- He argued that the finding of the lower court was against the established principles of law.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED
- The High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the Family Court’s order.
- The Court found that there was a clear finding by the learned Judge that the wife was unable to maintain herself.
- Importantly, the Court noted that there was no finding that the wife was living separately without any sufficient reason or that she had refused to live with her husband.
- The Court held that the impugned order was perfectly legal and within jurisdiction, being based on proper appraisal of the evidence available on record.
- The Court found no illegality or impropriety in the Family Court’s order and declared the revision devoid of merits.
- Any interim order was vacated, and a copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the court below for necessary compliance.
CONCLUSION
This judgment reinforces the principle that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a husband is liable to provide maintenance to his wife if she is unable to maintain herself, regardless of his limited financial means. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the husband to prove that the wife is living separately without sufficient reason. The case establishes that mere allegation of the wife’s refusal to cohabit, without proper evidence, cannot absolve the husband of his maintenance obligations. The judgment prioritizes the welfare and maintenance rights of wives and children under the criminal law provisions for maintenance.
