“I cannot live with him even for a single day” — the words that cost Sangeeta Toppo her ₹15,000 monthly maintenance
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Criminal Revision No.512 of 2023 recently concluded with a significant ruling that offers important insights into maintenance cases under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When Justice Subhash Chand overturned a maintenance order in favor of Sangeeta Toppo, he established a clear precedent about the importance of “reasonable cause” in separation.
The Marriage and Its Dissolution
According to court records, Amit Kumar Kachhap and Sangeeta Toppo were married on December 1, 2014, at Argora, Ranchi, following the customs and rituals of their Sarna community. What happened after the wedding became the central dispute of the case.
In her maintenance application, Sangeeta Toppo claimed that from the very next day after marriage, her husband and in-laws began demanding dowry items including a car, refrigerator, and LED TV. She alleged that her husband would consume alcohol, abuse her, and had developed an illicit relationship with a woman named Poonam Kumari. As an unemployed tribal woman, she sought maintenance of ₹50,000 per month, citing her husband’s substantial income as a Loco Pilot with Indian Railways (₹60,000 monthly) plus additional revenue from a marriage hall (₹1,00,000 monthly) and rental properties (₹60,000 monthly).
Amit Kumar Kachhap presented a completely different account. He stated that after marriage, his wife stayed in their matrimonial home for merely one week before returning to Ranchi at the request of her maternal uncle and aunt who were acting as her guardians. On February 23, 2015, they took her to Ranchi with a promise to return within 15 days, but despite repeated requests, she never returned to their matrimonial home. He further alleged that she terminated a pregnancy without his consent during her stay with her relatives.
The Evidence That Changed Everything
The court examined testimony from multiple witnesses. Critically, Sangeeta Toppo herself stated in court that she had “lived in her matrimonial house for a total period of one month” and that she “does not want to reside with her husband because he has illicit relation with another woman.” She categorically denied ever being pregnant or undergoing any abortion.
However, the court found compelling evidence that contradicted her testimony. A prescription from Dr. Indu Chouhan dated February 21, 2015, showed that Sangeeta Kachhap, 27 years old, was pregnant by approximately 2.5 months. As Justice Chand noted in the judgment: “This prescription issued by Dr. Indu Chouhan, in which, the pregnancy is also shown ‘positive’ belies the statement of applicant Sangeeta Toppo, who has flatly refused that she never became pregnant.”
The court also considered testimony from Poonam Kumari, who clarified that she was Amit Kumar Kachhap’s childhood friend and friend of his sister, not his illicit partner as alleged. The court noted that cross-examination failed to effectively challenge this relationship.
Six Failed Attempts at Reconciliation
Perhaps most significantly, evidence showed that during six separate mediation sessions, Amit Kumar Kachhap expressed willingness to resume the marriage. Instead of reconciliation, Sangeeta reportedly demanded ₹75 lakhs as lifetime alimony. As recorded in the judgment, she stated she “does not want to reside with her husband in any condition” and “cannot live with him even for a single day.”
The Legal Principle: Section 125(4) CrPC
Justice Subhash Chand’s ruling hinged on Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which he quoted directly:
> “No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, 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 by mutual consent.”
The court’s conclusion was unambiguous: “The respondent-applicant has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause… she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance.”
The Judgment and Its Implications
After evaluating all evidence, Justice Chand determined: “In view of the overall evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is found that the respondent-applicant has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, this point of determination is decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party-wife.”
This judgment overturned the Family Court’s earlier order that had granted Sangeeta Toppo ₹15,000 per month in maintenance dating back to her original application on October 30, 2017.
The ruling establishes several important precedents for maintenance cases:
1. Documentary evidence (such as medical records) carries significant weight when contradicting oral testimony.
2. A wife’s categorical refusal to attempt reconciliation, despite the husband’s willingness, can be a determining factor in maintenance claims.
3. The burden of establishing “reasonable cause” for refusing to live with a spouse falls on the party seeking maintenance.
As stated in the final judgment: “This Criminal Revision is hereby allowed and the order passed by the learned Court below is set aside.”
