Case analysis of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Dr. V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India & ors., and Dr. Malathi Ravi v. Dr. B.V. Ravi

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2007) (2 SCC 316)

Facts

In the present case, the husband is the applicant and the wife is the defendant. They were in a conjugal relationship for approximately four decades and two decades ago they were divorced. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973). She claimed maintenance under the same and for a compensation of Rs. 10,000.

Further, the respondent claimed that she was out of work and hence she is not being able to maintain herself. On the other hand, the applicant was a retired employee of the Agriculture Department and was getting a pension of Rs. 8000. The appellant defended that the respondent is living in the house put up by the husband and the wife had let out of the house on lease since 1979 and that she is residing with one of their sons; and that the respondent had also sold the agricultural land.

The husband contended that the respondent was living in a house that was made by him and the wife had let it out on lease. In 1979 she was living with one of the sons. The husband further stated that his wife had sold the agricultural land and that she could maintain herself from the income being generated from the sale of the agricultural as well as rent money. The husband was instructed to pay a monthly payment of Rs. 1500 to the wife by the High Court and the Revisional Court.

Issues

1. If the deserted wife is getting some money, then can she get maintenance from the husband under Section 125 of the CrPC (1973)?

Laws

• Section 125 of CrPC (1973)
• Section 483 of CrPC (1973)
• Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution
• Article 39 (a) of the Indian Constitution
• Section 488 of CrPC

Analysis

In the current case, the court took the decision in favour of the wife and instructed the husband to pay some money to his wife so that she could maintain herself. This was because of the fact that the wife did not have sufficient sources of income and was having financial difficulties in her life. The husband was receiving a monthly pension from the government and this made him financially independent, unlike the wife. Under the provisions of Indian law, the wife is entitled to some form of maintenance by her husband provided she is not financially independent. 

Conclusion

If a man is financially independent then it is his duty to maintain his wife even after their divorce. The maintenance should not be only given to the wife but also to the children in case the custody is with the mother. There is the question of proving the burden of proof but that cannot be used as an excuse by the husband to not provide maintenance.

If the wife and children are living in a poverty- like situation then too, the husband should financially contribute. Another situation might be where the wife is earning but that is not sufficient to sustain herself and her children. In this case, too the husband should provide maintenance.

Dr. V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India & ors. (2010) (9 SCC 211)

Facts

Adithya is the son of the petitioner and the respondent and he is a foreign citizen. Dr. V Ravi Chandran filed a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his son as well as for handing over custody. The petitioner has American Citizenship. His wife approached the New York State Supreme Court for filing a divorce and for the termination of their marriage.

It was decided that joint custody of the minor would be given. The court further stated that the location of the child must be known at all times. On July 28, 2005, there was a Separation Agreement entered into by the petitioner and the defendant.

This was for the purpose of dividing the marital property, the maintenance of the wife, and the provision of child support. On September 8, 2005, their marriage was officially dissolved by the NYS Supreme Court. On June 28, 2007, the wife informed the petitioner that she would be taking their son to Chennai where she would reside with her parents.

On August 08, 2007, Dr. Ravi filed a petition before the family court and a show cause notice was issued to the defendant. The wife was then directed to immediately turn over the minor child and his passport to the husband.

Issues

1. Whether or not joint custody of the child exists?
2. Whether or not the husband is allowed to keep joint custody of the child?

Law

• Section 41(English) of the Supreme Court Act, 1981
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
• Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Analysis

This case was extremely important to bring clarity over the joint custody of children provided the parents are living in separate countries. The divorce happened in the United States of America but the custody of the child was still in contention. When the wife brought the minor to India then this act of hers deprived the father of the child’s custody as he was a resident of the USA. Dr. Ravi could not travel to India.

Further, the mother was instructed to take the child back to the USA. There were two areas of jurisdiction- the Indian Jurisdiction and the American Jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the marital situation of the parents, it is also integral to take the interest of the minor child into account.

Conclusion

In the current case, the CBI Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also intervened by finding out the location of the child. The Supreme Court of India made it clear that the NYS Supreme Court was the only authority that could make decisions on the matter. If the mother of the child had any grievances, then she had to approach the US Court.

There was a period during the case when the mother tried to ghost the courts and the case. Once the child was traced then the child was directly handed over to the father. The NYS Supreme Court’s decision prevailed and was the final authority in the matter.

Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. v. Dr. B.V. Ravi (2014) (7 SCC 640)

Facts

The husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) the Act pursuing a statute for judicial separation and abolition of marriage. The defendant in the case is an Associate Professor in a medical college. He filed a petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was done on 23/11/1994 in a Hindu traditional way.

The husband and wife lived together for one and a half years after their marriage. The wife showed signs of non-cooperation, and aggression and behaved inappropriately in front of the other members. A male child was born. The wife took the child away and left the family for a time period of three years. The wife then joined a post-graduate course in the Medical College of Gulbarga.

The husband wrote many letters to his wife but he did not get a reply.  The husband wanted reconciliation of the marriage. The wife alienated the husband and his family and this caused immense emotional pain and trauma to the husband. The family members of the wife insulted and mentally tortured the husband. The wife complained of interference from the sister and brother-in-law of the husband.

In the opinion of the wife, the husband was getting influenced by his sister and brother-in-law. Further, the wife filed a petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights and this was objected to by the husband. Later, it came to be known that the wife had abandoned the husband for more than five years.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent assaulted him for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition?
2. Whether the respondent proves that the petitioner without reasonable excuse withdrawn from society?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for?
4. Whether the respondent is entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal right as prayed for?

Law

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 9, 13, 13(1), 23
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
• Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 34, 498A, 506
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Section 438

Analysis

Marriage is often related to a new beginning for a person. It is a huge responsibility not only on part of the husband but the wife too. A person has to be selfless and cooperative to have a successful marriage. Also, marriage is an emotional and spiritual relationship. Sometimes due to minor misunderstandings or small conflicts, a marriage can turn into a divorce.

In the present case, the wife failed to cooperate with the husband and his family. This had severe repercussions as the holy bond of marriage was broken. The husband suffered from mental trauma and had difficulties living his life due to the actions of the wife. It was decided that the wife has no motive to lead a normal marital life and the marriage had to irretrievably be broken down.

Conclusion

In the current case, despite the best efforts of the husband, the marriage could not be revived. The emotional and mental damage done by the wife was beyond repair. The court’s decision was in the best interest of both parties.

References:

https://www.daaman.org/jd/Chaturbhuj-vs-Sita-Bai/Under-the-law-the-burden-is-placed-in-the-first-place-upon-the-wife-to-show-that-the-means-of-her-husband-are-sufficient

https://vidhishala1.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/chaturbhuj-vs-sitabai-supreme-court-case-analysis/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/latest-supreme-court-judgments-on-granting-of-maintenance-to-wife/#Chaturbhuj_v_Sita_Bai_2007

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-023-5404?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

http://cja.gov.in/All%20Judgments/Custody%20of%20Children.pdf

http://ncwapps.nic.in/ExpertCommitteePDFFiles/EC_NRIMarriages.pdf

https://rajasthanjudicialacademy.nic.in/docs/impjudfc22012017.pdf

This article has been submitted by Kartik Tripathi a student at School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore.