The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara has observed that granting interim maintenance under Chapter IX of CrPC is like giving first aid which prevents wives and children from various modes of vagrancy and its consequences. (Subhash Chand V. Krishani Devi)
The bench observed, "Granting interim maintenance is similar to giving first aid. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides a quick remedy by a summary procedure to protect the applicant against starvation and tide over immediate difficulties by a deserted wife or children to secure some reasonable sum by way of maintenance."
The bench said, "The foundation of the measures of social Justice enacted by the Legislature lay beneath the sweep of Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India. It fulfills the concept of a welfare State in a vibrant democracy by safeguarding wives and children and preventing them from the modes of vagrancy and its consequences."
Facts of the case
The present plea was filed by a husband seeking to quash the order of Family Court, upheld by the Sessions Court, directing him to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 to his wife and children.
It was the wife's case that she was a widow at the time of the wedding and that on the Petitioner's persuasion, she agreed to marry him. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband argued that the woman has been drawing benefits, which is given to widows, and as such the marriage was never solemnized between the two.
The maintenance was ordered after the wife, also a mother of three children had moved an application under Section 125 CrPC alleging that the petitioner withdrew giving her financial assistance and would spend his money on liquor.
Contention of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Krishani Devi defrauded Subhash Chand by showing her his legally wedded wife to claim maintenance.
On the contrary, Advocate, appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel to defend the respondent-wife Krishani Devi, argued that the courts have granted only interim maintenance and the element of fraud, etc., are subject to proof in evidence and cross-examination. She argued that law provides for interim maintenance as an immediate remedy for sustenance. She further argued that a meager amount had been granted, whereas the husband worked with HRTC as a driver.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The court noted, "Granting interim maintenance is similar to giving first aid. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides a quick remedy by a summary procedure to protect the applicant against starvation and tide over immediate difficulties by a deserted wife or children to secure some reasonable sum by way of maintenance. S. 125 (1) (a) of CrPC provides a grant of maintenance to the wife, unable to maintain herself."
The bench further noted, "Proviso to S. 125 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to order monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and also the expenses of such proceeding during its pendency. The foundation of the measures of social Justice enacted by the Legislature lay beneath the sweep of Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India. It fulfills the concept of a welfare State in a vibrant democracy by safeguarding wives and children and preventing them from the modes of vagrancy and its consequences. Given above, it would be appropriate for the Courts to direct the person against whom an application is made under S. 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application."
It added that although the marriage has been challenged by the Petitioner as never solemnized, yet, it is subject to proof and in the instant petition, the Court is concerned with interim maintenance and nothing more.
The Court noted that there is neither any illegality nor the maintenance beyond the petitioner's means; as such, there are no merits in the present petition. Furthermore, if the Court concludes that Krishani Devi played fraud upon Subhash Chand, it would undoubtedly have consequences. Given above, the impugned orders are well reasoned and call for no interference.
The bench dismissing the petition remarked, "In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails to make out a case at this stage. However, this order shall not prohibit any of the parties to seek legal remedies under section 127 CrPC in accordance with the law."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
