C.R.R. No.2875 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.R. No.2875 of 2009 Date of Decision : 22.03.2011 Smt. Anita Verma …Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This revision has been filed against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, C.R.R. No.2875 of 2009 -2- Bhiwani whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The parties were married on 02.05.2004. Thereafter on 14.03.2008 they obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent. During this interregnum the instant application for maintenance allowance was also filed. The Court below dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the parties were living separately by mutual consent and thus the petitioner being covered under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. was not entitled for maintenance. It was also found that the petitioner was working as a teacher at the time when the instant application was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that firstly the interpretation of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. which has been given by the Court below is erroneous and secondly that the petitioner in any case is not working any more and is entitled for maintenance. With regard to first argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Vanamala vs. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 299, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “125(4). No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately C.R.R. No.2875 of 2009 -3- by mutual consent. On a plain reading of this Section it seems fairly clear that the expression ‘wife’ in the said sub-section does not have the extended meaning of including a woman 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 of a divorcee woman living in adultery or without sufficient reason refusing to live with her husband. After divorce where is the occasion for the woman to live with her husband? Similarly there would be no question of the husband and wife living separately by mutual consent because after divorce there is no need for consent to live separately. In the context, therefore, sub-section (4) of Section 125 does not apply to the case of a woman who has been divorced or who has obtained a decree of divorce. In our view, therefore, this contention is not well founded.” In this view of the matter, the conclusions of the Court below are clearly erroneous. Consequently, it has to be held that merely by obtaining divorce by mutual consent the petitioner has not lost her right to claim maintenance. With regard to second argument, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that a bare averment in the grounds of C.R.R. No.2875 of 2009 -4- revision that the petitioner is not working would not be enough to entitle her for maintenance and if there is a change of situation then the petitioner can at best file a fresh application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. Leaned counsel for the petitioner had no answer to this legal submission. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed with the above mentioned observations and with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., if so advised. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 22, 2011 JUDGE ashish