Delhi High Court: In a revision petition concerning the husband’s liability to maintain his wife under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), where the husband sought to reopen the question of their marital status, despite the issue having already been conclusively determined in earlier proceedings and challenged the family court’s maintenance order, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., reaffirmed the finality of earlier judicial findings and held that husband cannot have “another bite at the cherry” and reopen a previously decided martial status issue in a subsequent proceeding merely to escape a maintenance liability, a legal obligation arising from that determination. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the husband had failed to establish grounds warranting interference in revision.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife were married on 20 May 2002 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated, but no child was born from the marriage. Their matrimonial relationship deteriorated shortly thereafter, and in August 2002, wife left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental residence.
On 30 September 2003, the husband instituted a suit seeking a declaration that he was unmarried and an injunction restraining respondent from claiming to be his wife. The suit was initially decreed in his favour.
The wife challenged that decree through civil appeal which was allowed on 22 July 2006, and the decree in favour of the husband was set aside. The husband thereafter approached the High Court, but the second appeal was dismissed on 4 April 2011, thereby upholding the earlier appellate judgment.
Meanwhile, in 2008, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. The Family Court ultimately directed the husband to pay maintenance at different rates, including ₹7000 per month from the date of filing until December 2011, ₹10,000 per month from January 2012 to December 2013, and ₹10,000 per month thereafter, together with ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses.
The husband challenged the Family Court’s decision before the Delhi High Court through the present revision petition.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the petitioner could again challenge the existence or validity of his marriage with the respondent in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC when that issue had already been decided in earlier proceedings?
-
Whether the respondent was entitled to claim maintenance as the petitioner’s legally wedded wife under Section 125 CrPC?
-
Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, could interfere with the Family Court’s findings and the quantum of maintenance?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court emphasised on the restricted nature of its revisional jurisdiction. Relying upon Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu, (2011) 12 SCC 189, the Court stated that it was not sitting as an appellate court to reassess or reappreciate the evidence. Interference would be justified only where there was a material illegality or irregularity in the Family Court’s decision.
Applying that above discussed principle and fact that the issue of marriage inter se the parties had long been settled by the judgment dated 22 July 2006 passed in the earlier proceedings, against which civil appeal had also been dismissed, the Court opined that it needs no further deliberation. Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner was bound by those findings. A party cannot repeatedly litigate an issue that has already been finally determined simply by presenting the same dispute in a subsequent proceeding.
“The petitioner cannot seek to escape the outcome thereof by, once again, de novo contending the very same decided issues in another/fresh proceeding at a later stage.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner had led no evidence in support of his case in the proceedings before the Family Court. Having failed to discharge the burden placed upon him, he “cannot be permitted to have another bite at the cherry, and that too in a revision petition by trying to rake open the earlier settled issue of his marriage with the respondent before”.
The Court held that once the marriage was treated as established, the wife came within the ambit of Section 125 CrPC. Therefore, the Court rejected the husband’s attempt to avoid maintenance liability by disputing the marital relationship afresh.
Regarding husband’s submission that he was responsible for supporting his ailing mother, present wife and son, the Court referred to Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, and held that “as any husband, the petitioner owes a legal debt to maintain any wife like the respondent”. Consequently, it was held that the fact that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner and had other family responsibilities could not, by itself, relieve him of his obligation to maintain the respondent.
The Court further found that the Family Court’s findings were a plausible and well-reasoned interpretation of the material on record and there was no justification for interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
Decision
The Court held that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the issue of their marriage had already been settled by the earlier judgment and could not be reopened, thus, the petitioner had failed to establish grounds warranting interference in revision. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition and pending applications.
Also Read: Supreme Court on Husband’s Adultery Allegations Against Wife and Interim Maintenance
[A v. M, CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018, decided on 31-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Nakul Nirwan, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Gupta and Mr. Raghav Gupta, Advs.