The Apex Court has said a husband is required to earn money “even by physical labour” to meet his sacrosanct duty to provide financial support to the estranged wife, minor children & couldn’t avoid his obligation.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M Trivedi said provision for maintenance under CrPC Sec 125 is a measure of social justice that was specially enacted to protect women & children & refused to accept plea of a husband who submitted he had no source of income as his party business has now been closed.
It said that “The respondent (husband) being an able bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means & maintain his wife & the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the family court, & having regard to the other evidence on record, the court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income & was able-bodied, had failed & neglected to maintain the appellant".
The Supreme Court directed a man to pay maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to his wife & Rs 6,000 to his minor son.
The bench said Section 125 of CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish & financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself & the children. It pulled up a family court to deny maintenance to the woman & her children after she left the matrimonial home & started living separately & said that the court was not alive to the objects & reasons, & the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the code.
The bench said that “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 & to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, & could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs Sita case, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy & destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, & shelter by a speedy remedy".
The bench also disapproved the Punjab and Haryana HC passing order in a very casual manner by upholding “such an erroneous & perverse order of family court”. The court passed the order in favour of the wife who approached the apex court and was fighting a legal battle for maintenance for around a decade after she left her matrimonial home in 2010.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
