Morung Express News
Dimapur | April 9
In a significant ruling clarifying the limits of customary adjudication vis a vis statutory remedies, the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, has held that a woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) remains enforceable irrespective of customary settlements or divorce decrees.
Accordingly, on April 6, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer set aside a February 27, 2024 order of the Family Court, Dimapur, which had dismissed a maintenance petition on the ground that the matter had already been settled by a Gaon Bura’s (GB) Customary Court.
Case background
The case traces back to a live in relationship that began in October 2015 and was formally solemnised on January 16, 2016 in the presence of family members and relatives.
According to the petitioner (wife), the marriage soon turned abusive, including physical and verbal abuse as well as ‘degrading and inhuman treatment’ by the respondent (husband).
On August 15, 2018, the respondent initiated divorce proceedings before the GB Customary Court in Kiphire. Within days, on August 20, the petitioner alleged that she was assaulted and forcibly evicted from the matrimonial home.
She then approached the Women Police Station in Dimapur, leading to the respondent being taken into custody. While in custody, the respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner on August 20, 2018, undertaking to compensate her for the abuse. The agreement included, among other terms, the transfer of land at Padampukhri village. The petitioner subsequently received part of the compensation, including Rs 5 lakh in cash and a vehicle with Smart Card and Insurance Policy.
Parallel proceedings
Meanwhile, on October 10, 2018, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dimapur, seeking protection, residence, and monetary relief.
While this case remained pending, the GB Customary Court delivered its verdict on November 15, 2018, dissolving the marriage.
Significantly, the customary court altered the terms of the August 20 agreement, directing that key components, including Rs 15 lakh in claimed dues, Rs 1.5 lakh in wedding gifts, and the transfer of land at Padampukhri, would be omitted.
Thus, although the agreement was nominally upheld, its most substantial components were effectively nullified.
Meanwhile, on June 21, 2024, the DV case before the JMFC culminated in a final order granting the petitioner rented accommodation at Rs 12,000 per month, monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000, and compensation of Rs 40,000.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Dimapur, on August 5, 2021.
However, the respondent raised preliminary objections, contending that the GB Customary Court, protected under Article 371A, had already settled the issue of maintenance and that the petitioner had received compensation under the 2018 agreement.
Accepting these objections, the Family Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the petitioner had already derived benefits from the customary settlement and could instead challenge the GB Court’s order through appeal.
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the High Court.
‘Independent statutory remedy’
On revision, the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction and had wrongly treated the customary settlement as a bar to statutory relief.
The Court emphasised the nature and purpose of Section 125 CrPC, observing: “Section 125 CrPC is a secular, summary, and independent statutory remedy.”
It reiterated that the provision is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and cannot be subordinated to personal or customary laws.
Rejecting the respondent’s core defence that the order dated November 15, 2018 had attained finality and that Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 was therefore barred by res judicata, the Court held that the obligation of a husband to maintain his divorced wife cannot be affected by the existence of any personal or customary law.
It further clarified that prior settlements do not extinguish statutory rights, and that a petitioner retains the right to file a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC notwithstanding any settlement passed by a customary court.
The Court also reaffirmed that a divorced woman continues to be treated as a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC until her remarriage, and that courts may intervene where customary arrangements are insufficient for her sustenance.
Court’s direction
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated February 27, 2024 in Maintenance Case No. 04/2021 of the Family Court, Dimapur, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Court directed that both parties be allowed to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities and to lead evidence.
It further directed that, while determining appropriate maintenance, the Family Court shall consider these affidavits, the evidence on record, and the fact that the petitioner has already received Rs 5,00,000, a vehicle, and is receiving Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance along with Rs 12,000 towards rent, before granting maintenance as deemed fit.
The Registry was directed to return the Trial Court records expeditiously.
It remains to be seen whether the verdict will be appealed before a Division Bench of the Court.
