Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday allowed a woman to live separately from her husband while affirming her right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The court’s decision came after acknowledging the wife had compelling reasons to leave the marital home, including unfounded suspicions from her husband regarding their child’s fair complexion and subsequent physical abuse.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
According to Live Law, Justice Parthivjyoti Saika presiding over the case observed, “The petitioner and the respondent have dark complexions, but their child has a fair complexion.” That is the reason why the dispute between the wife and the husband arose. The husband started to physically harass the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child.”
The case originated from a Trial Court order that granted the wife INR 2,500 and the child INR 500 as maintenance. The husband challenged this order in the Sessions Court, which upheld the child’s maintenance but denied it to the wife.
The Sessions Court cited inconsistencies in the wife’s testimony and criticized the Trial Court’s assumption that a woman wouldn’t leave her matrimonial home without reason, deeming it legally impermissible.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Aggrieved by this decision, the wife, represented by Advocate AK Hussain, appealed to the High Court. Hussain argued that Section 125 CrPC, a social legislation designed to protect married women, should not face the stringent evidentiary standards of civil suits.
The High Court noted the couple’s dark complexion contrasted with their fair-skinned child, which fueled the husband’s suspicion about the child’s parentage.
This suspicion, the court found, led to repeated physical abuse, ultimately forcing the wife and child to leave. The bench deemed the abuse and suspicion as valid and sufficient grounds for the wife to live separately.
Consequently, the Gauhati High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order and reinstated the Trial Court’s decision, granting maintenance to the wife.
Â