Revisiting Dharmendra v. CK Bose (1973) in the context of CrPC's 'Reason to Believe' clause

Log kya kahenge if they teach us outdated CrPC cases in CLAT UG? Seriously, though, this judgment still holds relevance. In Dharmendra v. CK Bose, the SC widened the scope of the 'reason to believe' clause under s. 125(4) CrPC, making it easier for husbands to claim exemption from maintenance payments. The court essentially removed the requirement of 'satisfaction' in favour of a more lenient 'reason to believe'. This was seen as pro-male by some, but others argue it was a step towards reducing litigation over maintenance disputes. Agree, it's still relevant today, as the 'reason to believe' clause continues to be a key point of contention in such cases. Jab tum log mock tests dete ho, consider how this judgment might affect your arguments in a hypothetical scenario.