In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has established that arrears of maintenance owed by a husband to a dependent wife, children, or parents become legally recognizable as a "debt" once a definite amount becomes payable. The court held that such arrears, once crystallized by a court order or decree under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C), can be recovered through a civil suit.
Brief Facts:
The case revolves around an appeal filed in the Delhi High Court against an order passed by the family court. The appellant, Vasu Bajaj, a minor, challenged the dismissal of a suit filed by his mother, Smt. Nirmal Bajaj, seeking the recovery of maintenance arrears from his father, Rakesh Bajaj.
Smt. Nirmal Bajaj and Rakesh Bajaj got married on 14th December 1999, and they had a son, Vasu Bajaj, born on 13th November 2000. Due to disputes, Smt. Nirmal Bajaj alleged that she was harassed and abused by Rakesh Bajaj, resulting in her leaving their matrimonial home. She sought maintenance for herself and their son, Vasu Bajaj.
Smt. Nirmal Bajaj filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance. The application was granted by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and Rakesh Bajaj was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 per month in maintenance to Vasu Bajaj. Rakesh Bajaj challenged this order but was unsuccessful in his appeal.
Despite the maintenance order, Rakesh Bajaj failed to make consistent payments, leading Vasu Bajaj's mother to file an Execution Petition under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C) for the recovery of arrears. Rakesh Bajaj paid a portion of the arrears but failed to pay the entire amount, resulting in a legal battle.
Contentions of the Parties:
Appellant's Contentions:
- The appellant, Vasu Bajaj, through his legal representatives, argued that he was entitled to recover the arrears of maintenance from his father, Rakesh Bajaj.
- They contended that the maintenance awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had not been consistently paid by Rakesh Bajaj, and thus, the appellant was seeking recovery of the arrears.
Respondent's Contentions:
- Rakesh Bajaj, the respondent, contested the appellant's claims, asserting that the suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance was not maintainable.
- He argued that Section 125(3) of the Cr. P.C. provided a limitation period of one year for recovery of maintenance from the date it became due.
Observations by the Court:
A division bench consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna clarified that even though maintenance doesn't inherently arise from contractual obligations, it attains the status of a "debt" when quantified by a legal order. The ruling emphasized that Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy, only embodies the social obligation of a husband towards dependents, transforming into a "debt" when court-mandated payment is due.
The court concluded that maintenance obligations serve to prevent financial hardship for women and children entirely reliant on their spouses, avoiding circumstances that might lead to criminal behaviour.
The decision of the Court:
In light of this, the court allowed the appeal, decreed the suit for Rs. 2,05,000, and granted interest until realization.
Case Name: Vasu Bajaj vs Rakesh Bajaj
Coram: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 226/2019
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Ankur Mahindra, Mr. Ankush Satija and Mr. Aditya Kapur, Advocates.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Kamal Kumar, Mr. Rakesh Bajaj and Mr. Savyasachi Rawat, Advocates.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :