MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

Law and Logic - Project

PROJECT TOPIC: IRAC ANALYSIS OF BHEEKHA RAM VS GOMA DEVI AND ORS.

Submitted To: Prof. James

Submitted By:
Name: Kamran Tamboli
Enrolment Number: 2020 043
Section: A
Semester III
Course: B.A.LLB (Hons.)
 Bheekha Ram vs Goma Devi And Ors. on 22 January, 1999
1999 CriLJ 1789

Issue:
The brief version of the circumstances is that Goma Devi filed an application for maintenance
against her husband-Bheeka Ram (petitioner in this revision) for herself and her two minor kids
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Rule of Law:
The wife, child, and parents are entitled to support under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. After a party invokes Section 125 of the Code, the court may order the respondent, that is,
the husband, to support the wife who is unable to support herself by paying her monthly
maintenance. The regulation does, however, include an exemption. For the purpose of giving
maintenance to the wife, the husband must be able to maintain his wife after the separation, and
the wife must not be living in adultery or living separately from her husband for whatever
reason. Even if they live apart with mutual permission, the wife is not entitled to any type of
maintenance. When a decision is rendered in favour of the wife, the court must ensure that the
husband has the resources to support the wife. The court must also ensure that the wife does not
have enough money to support herself after the divorce.

Analysis:
Goma Devi filed an application for maintenance against her husband-Bheeka Ram (petitioner in
this revision) on her behalf and on behalf of her two minor kids under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
It was said that Goma Devi was married to Bheeka Ram 12-13 years ago, but for a period her
husband and his parents were tormenting her for dowry, and that she was beaten and sent out of
the house, only to be taken back by them with much difficulty. It was also claimed that she
bought a plot of land by selling her ornaments, built a home with the support of her parents, and
began living there, but three months before lodging the application, Bheekha Ram attempted to
kill her by burning her, and that he has since abandoned her. Bheekha Ram was said to earn Rs.
60/- a day doing Mason work. It was requested that she be granted support of Rs. 400/- per
month for herself and Rs. 250/- per month for each of her children. The spouse disputed the
accusation of maltreatment for dowry in his response. He also denied ever assaulting Goma Devi
or attempting to murder her. He presented the case that Goma Devi misbehaved with his parents
and, as a result, he acquired a plot of land and built a house for him to live separately, but his
wife continued to subject him to mental anguish by abusing his parents and neglecting him. It
was claimed that the wife had left his home without justification and was not fulfilling her
marital responsibilities.

Conclusion:
She was, in reality, living with her parents on her own own. As a result, she is not entitled to a
maintenance stipend for herself. She is, nevertheless, entitled to a maintenance stipend for her
two children who live with her. Bheekha Ram has not come up with the claim that he was paying
Goma Devi a maintenance stipend for the children. It was not the children's fault that they were
living with their mother. The father is obligated to give them with support. Hence the magistrate
decided that bheeka ram is obliged to pay maintenance for the kids but not his wife.

Commentary:
The provision for interim maintenance is provided under Section 125 of the code, which implies
that the magistrate may issue an order instructing the husband to pay the wife's monthly
allowances while an application is pending in court. However, if the magistrate believes that
there has been a change in the circumstances of the individual who has been paying or receiving
the monthly allowances, he has the authority to vary the amount of maintenance to be paid. This
was established in Vikas v. State of Uttar Pradesh. All such maintenance petitions may be filed
in any district where the person obligated to pay resides, where the wife resides, or where the
person last resided with the wife, mother, or illegitimate child. The goal of Section 125 of the
CrPC is to attain a social goal in society.

The objective of Section 125 of the CrPC was clarified in the case of K. Vimal v. K.
Veeraswamy, which concluded that Section 125 of the Code was intended to achieve a social
purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure the welfare of the wife by providing her with
the necessary housing and food following her separation from the husband. In this case, it was
determined that if the wife lived like a wife and the husband treated her like a wife for all of the
years preceding their separation, the wife could not be refused support by her husband.