The Allahabad High Court has observed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied to wife on the ground that she can sustain herself from the moeny she got from selling the property of the husband.
The single-judge bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh thus disapproved of the Family Court's view and partly allowed prayers of the revisionist-wife noting that if there was some property and money out of sold property was used for maintenance of the children as well as revisionist; it could not be inferred that the revisionist has lost her opportunity for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The revisionist had prayed for setting aside of the impugned Family Court order and further direction to opposite party to pay at least Rs.10,000/- as the monthly maintenance.
It was her case that opposite party had provided maintenance to her till 1983, but thereafter it was stopped by him and that she was dependent on her brother who used to provide financial assistance but suddenly he had gone missing and the financial assistance was automatically stopped. She filed application due to the fact that she has no source of income at the relevant time, therefore, she needs maintenance from her husband.
The Opposite Party agreed to the marriage but denied the fact that he ever misbehaved with his wife or harassed her. He further stated that the nature of the revisionist was very obstinate and she had no adjustment with the family that is why the relationship between them became sour.
The Family Court in its analysis recorded the finding that the property at Farrukhabad was sold by the revisionist and she received money out of sold property which indicates that she has sufficient means. On this very finding the court below came to the conclusion that the revisionist has concealed the material fact because she had not disclosed the said facts at the time of the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist had relied upon RAJNESH vs. NEHA, 2020 Latest Caselaw 594 SC to submit that the status of the husband and wife should be looked into and even if the wife is working and has got some means of income, she is entitled for maintenance as per the status of the husband. In line with the precedent, it was further averred that maintenance laws have been enacted as measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wife and children for their financial support so as to prevent them from falling into destitution.
In this backdrop, the Court observed that Family Court passed the order without appreciating the facts in totality.
"The observation appears to be influenced by factual aspects which were not proved and without adducing them on record. The application has been rejected without application of mind. Since the income part and other relevant evidences have not looked into, it is not appropriate to arrive at any conclusion at the moment for granting maintenance because quantum can be assessed only after recording the finding on financial assets and income of the husband."
The matter was accordingly remanded back to the Family Court for re-adjudication.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
