The division judge bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the apex court in the case of Anju Garg and Ors V. Deepak Kumar Garg held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the Maintenance Petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. asks the respondent for maintenance and alleges, among other things, that the respondent was torturing the appellant-wife physically and mentally. As a result, thereof, she had to leave her matrimonial home along with her children time and again. The Family Court had granted Interim Maintenance Allowance of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favor of the appellants, however, the daughter having attained a majority, no interim maintenance was granted to her. The respondent had challenged all the three orders passed by the Family Court, by filing Revision Applications before the High Court, however, in none of the said proceedings, the High Court had granted any stay of the proceedings of the Family Court. The Family Court after appreciating the said evidence passed the order rejecting the application of appellant no.1 and her daughter, and granting a maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to appellant no.2 (original applicant no.3). As stated earlier, being aggrieved by the same, the appellants had preferred the revision application before the High Court, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the impugned order was issued by the High Court in a very hasty manner, without consideration for the respondent's actions during the Family Court proceedings. He argued that the Family Court had no reason not to accept the appellant-version, wife's which she had sworn to tell. The Maintenance application qua the appellant-wife was nonetheless denied by the Family Court, and the High Court erroneously upheld the said order made by the Family Court. Nevertheless, the Family Court accepted all of the learned counsel for the respondent's oral arguments without the respondent having introduced any supporting documentation.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the appellant-wife failed to establish that she was unable to support herself because she and the kids left the marital home without a valid reason. In addition, he claimed that the respondent has no source of income despite owning a party plot that has since been closed. He claimed that this Court should not intervene with the concurrent factual findings made by the two courts.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court observed that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
The hon’ble court held that the Family Court, in the instant case had not only overlooked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position but had proceeded with the proceedings in an absolute pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regard for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent with his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for a DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no.2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly misdirected itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife. The hon’ble apex court directed the respondent to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court.
CASE NAME- Anju Garg and Ors V. Deepak Kumar Garg
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
DATE-28.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
