The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a maintenance order while addressing the question on whether physical disability exempts an individual from the obligation of spousal maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). (Madhya Pradesh HC-Spouse Commitments)
The case was heard by Justice G. S. Ahluwalia. Mahendra Singh claimed his physical disability rendered him unable to support his wife, Kavita Singh. The court concluded that a temporary disability does not absolve him of his maintenance obligations.
The applicant, Mahendra Singh, and the respondent, Kavita Singh were married. Kavita Singh filed for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was initially granted by the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Pawai, District Panna, on January 10, 2022. Mahendra Singh was ordered to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000.
Both parties challenged this decision. Mahendra Singh filed a revision petition seeking to overturn the maintenance order, claiming severe disability from an accident that left him bedridden and unable to earn a living. Conversely, Kavita Singh sought an increase in the maintenance amount, which the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, granted on March 23, 2024, raising the maintenance to Rs. 5000 per month. (Madhya Pradesh HC-Spouse Commitments)
Mahendra Singh contended that he suffered an accident on July 25, 2020, resulting in electrocution and severe injuries to his hips, rendering him completely bedridden and incapable of employment. He supported his claim with a disability certificate indicating a 40% locomotor disability.
Justice Ahluwalia examined the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court noted that while the disability certificate confirmed a 40% temporary disability in both legs, it did not conclusively prove that Mahendra Singh was bedridden or entirely incapable of earning a livelihood. The disability certificate, valid until September 21, 2026, described the condition as temporary and did not establish that the applicant was confined to bed or unable to perform any work.
The court also scrutinized the lack of corroborative medical evidence presented during the trial. Although Mahendra Singh submitted photocopies of medical prescriptions, he did not seek the testimony of medical professionals to substantiate his claims during the trial. This omission weakened his argument that he was incapable of earning due to his disability.
The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (2021), which emphasizes the necessity of evaluating an individual’s financial capacity and obligations when determining maintenance. Justice Ahluwalia highlighted that despite the disability, Mahendra Singh had not convincingly demonstrated an inability to earn. The court concluded that a 40% temporary disability does not equate to being bedridden or incapable of employment, thus not absolving him of his maintenance obligations.
The High Court dismissed Mahendra Singh’s application, affirming that he must continue to provide Rs. 5000 per month in maintenance to Kavita Singh. The ruling emphasizes the court’s stance that disability claims must be thoroughly substantiated with medical evidence to exempt individuals from spousal maintenance obligations.
Case title: Mahendra Singh vs. Kavita Singh
Citation: MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 18176 of 2024
#airr #news #airrnews #channel #Legal #case #India #court #highcourt
