Pre medical history-sec9 rcr against 125 crpc

if the wife has refused to live with the petitioner without any sufficient reason and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for cancellation of the order of interim maintenance passed in favour of the wife.

Engage a local lawyer

In maintenance case, the fact of  pending RCR case can be highlighted as well as the voluntary abandonment of the petitioner can also be elucidated. Besides, other facts can also be pleaded.

A husband can take pleas in defense against claim u/s.125 CrPC which are special, in the case of a particular categories of applicants,according to relationship, Thus-

(a). In the case of the wife applicant,her claim may be defeated by the husband proving that,-

(i) She is not the wife of the opposite party;  or

(ii) She is living in Adultery;  or

(iii) She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason;  or

(IV)  They are living separately by mutual consent ( Sub sec. 4 )

(b) WHERE THE APPLICANT IS A CHILD, the opposite party may defeat the application by showing that.-

(i) The applicant is a major married daughter;

(ii) The applicant is a major son who is not unable to maintain himselff owing to some physical or mental abnormality or injury;

(III) The applicant is a minor married daughter whose husband is possessed to sufficient means to maintain her (vide proviso to sub-section1)

The word SUFFICIENT as stated in (a) (iii) above must construe and mean as per various judicial interpretations

Agreed with Biswanath Roy & Ramachary sir's opinion. In my case too, her maintenance application under section 125 Cr.PC got rejected based on the reason she refuses to live with me without any suificient reason

Exercise of civil court’s decree in favour of husband- Wife can not get maintenance if she refuses to live with him- Gita Kumar V/S Shiva Charan (Cr.L.J. 1975-page-137) ( Cr.L.J. 1974- page-373.)-

If husband gets  decree of restoration of conjugal rights Under Sec- 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, wife can’t claim maintenance- (GUJ-Cr.L.J.-1982-page-2033), (Cr.L.J.-2001-page-4175.)

There is valid decree of Sec 9 Of HM Act in favour of husband- there could be no reasonable excuse for wife to live separately – In view of Sec 125(4) Cr.P.C.- wife not entitled for maintenance- UTT-NCC-2010(1)-389.

Decision of civil court that wife is not entitled for maintenance is binding on criminal courts- Judgment and finding of Civil Court prevails over criminal court. -(Cr.L.J-1986-page-1216)

Held that during the pendency of a filed regular civil court petition under Section 24 of HMA, wife also simultaneously filed a parallel petition under 125 Cr.P.C. of the Code. It was held that the petitioner wife could not be allowed to ride two different horses at the time (two simultaneous proceedings in two different courts) and could not be permitted to continue the maintenance proceedings under section 125 Cr. P.C. when she has already chosen the alternative remedy by filing first a regular civil court suit for maintenance. It is well established that the judgment of the civil court shall prevail over the judgment of the criminal court. The natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different courts.-  Ravinder Haribhau Karamkar V/s Shaila Ravinder Karamkar, 1992, Cr. L.J. 1845- Bombay

Thanks to all experts, your suggestions are valuable for me. I am late to file this case as I lost my parents & job too due to family responsibilities. Although I am trouble but truth is with me....let me fight rest is with God. Thanks to all