Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Munni Bai vs Bhanwarlal

Supreme Court15 October 2015Anil R. Dave · Adarsh Kumar Goel

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a wife is not being maintained by her husband and is living separately, and there exists no justifiable reason for the separation, the husband is obliged to pay maintenance to the wife, and the matter must be remitted to the trial court for determination of the appropriate quantum of maintenance based on the evidence adduced.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1691 OF 2009

SMT. MUNNI BAI ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

BHANWARILAL AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Here the appellant is a miserable lady who has not

been maintained by her husband. It appears from the

record that respondent No.1-husband had been convicted

for committing the offence of bigamy but the appeal filed

against the said order was pending at the relevant point

of time. We are not sure whether in the said appeal

respondent No.1 has succeeded.

2. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the

appellant is not paid any amount of maintenance though

she is staying separately.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said

that the appellant is staying separately without any

justifiable reason. In our opinion she should be

maintained by respondent-husband.

Signature Not Verified 4. Looking at the facts of the case, we set aside the Digitally signed by Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.10.29 16:56:48 IST Reason: impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the

matter to the trial court so that after considering the

1 evidence, the trial court may take appropriate decision

regarding payment of maintenance.

5. The appeal is disposed of as allowed.

6. Parties to the litigation would remain present

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, Rajasthan on

25th November, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. so that the proceedings

can be commenced.

.................J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

....................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi;

15th October, 2015.

2 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1691/2009

MUNNI BAI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

BHANWARLAL & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 15/10/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Choudhary,Adv. (Not present)

For Respondent(s) Mr. Hari Om Yaduvanshi,Adv.

For Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.

Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.

For Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is disposed of as allowed in terms of the non-reportable judgement.

(Anita Malhotra) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Non-reportable judgement is placed on the file.)

3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free