The Bombay High Court dismissed an application filed against an order passed by the Family Court, Bhandara on an application filed by the wife and the children under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court observed that merely saying that the husband was and is always ready and willing to cohabit is not sufficient ground to absolve him of the liability to pay maintenance.
Brief Facts:
The non-applicant-wife had approached the Family Court by filing an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.39,000/- per month to maintain herself as well as her two minor children. The amount was claimed on the basis that she is unable to maintain herself and her children. She further claimed that an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month shall be paid for her children. It was contended that the applicant is a businessman who is dealing auto deal business of selling and purchasing four-wheelers and two-wheelers and earns an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
The Family Court considered the issue of whether the non-applicants can maintain themselves and whether the applicant has sufficient means to provide maintenance and despite that the applicant has neglected or refused to maintain the non-applicants. On careful scrutiny of the evidence placed before it, the learned Judge of the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the minor children.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that he is not desirous of contesting the order of maintenance or the educational expenses which are fastened upon him as against two minor children. His submission is that the award of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the wife is without any justification. He contended that he made every attempt to cohabit with his wife but there was no response.
The Learned counsel for the applicant took recourse to sub-section (4) of Section 125 by submitting that without any sufficient reason the wife has refused to live with him and therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance towards her.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the wife has referred to several instances of mental and physical torture faced by her when she was in cohabitation with the husband. Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. dis-entitles woman from claiming maintenance if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. None of the above ingredients are established by the applicant-husband as merely saying that he was and is always ready and willing to cohabit is not sufficient ground to absolve himself of the liability to pay maintenance by projecting that without any sufficient reason, the wife left his company.
Further, the Court remarked that since the husband has not disputed his liability towards the amount of maintenance as well as educational expenses, it is his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the application, held that there is no legal lacuna in the judgment of the Family Court directing the applicant husband to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to his wife.
Case Title: Shri Mudassir v Shirin
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bharati Dangre
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.R. Vyas
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. I.A. Fidvi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
