The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “A perusal of the law laid down by the Supreme Court would indicate that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have been enacted to remedy/reduce the financial sufferings of a lady, who was forced to leave her matrimonial house, so that some arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children. A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissibly ground is contained in the statutes.” (Jaiveer Singh V. Sunita Chaudhary)
Facts of the Case
The respondent filed a petition U/S.125 Cr.P.C stating that she is unable to sustain herself. The petitioner contended the respondent is working and earning handsomely. Both the parties had filed their respective affidavits of income. Revision petition was filed against the order of Family Court, directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance.
Contention of the Parties
Mr. Neerad Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the respondent has given a Statement under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
He also stated that as per her own statement she was doing modelling and that it was for the her to establish that the income earned by her is so less that she cannot maintain herself. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the this statement amounts to an admission under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also took this Court through evidence of income filed by the respondent herein. He has taken this Court through certain covers of magazines and also newspaper articles to establish that the respondent is employed and is capable of maintaining herself.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and stated that the order does not require any interference by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 397/401 of the CrPC.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The court referred to the Apex court judgment in the case Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, where the Court held that, “Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband.”
The court further relied on the judgement in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, where in the court had laid down criterion for determining the quantum of maintenance.
The Bench observed that, “The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.”
The Court Considering dismissing the revision petition said, “The petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned order. The petitioner is an ASI and is earning well so as to pay Rs.17,000/- to his wife who has no stable source of income. No material has been placed on record to show that the respondent is able to sustain herself. Magazine covers are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent can sustain herself. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed along with the pending application.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
