In Brief
A wife obtained a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband. After the husband filed a divorce petition, the parties settled, and the maintenance proceeding was closed subject to the husband paying fixed monthly amounts. When the husband defaulted, the wife sought to revive the maintenance application. The Family Court allowed this. The husband challenged it, arguing Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibited revising final orders. The Supreme Court held that Section 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. expressly permit courts to alter or revive maintenance orders, creating an exception to Section 362. Using a purposive interpretation, the Court revived the wife's claim to protect vulnerable women and prevent husbands from manipulating settlements. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.