SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 527

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Meena & Ors. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1565 of 2013)
Decided On : 15-07-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
In the facts of the case, maintenance is payable from date of application.

Headnote:Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Family court established to expeditiously decide the sensitive family matters – Instantly case lingered for nine years – Mostly husband taking adjournments – Maintenance, held, payable from the date of application – Not from the date of award.(Para 14)

       (1987) 1 SCC 624; (1991) 2 SCC 375; (1996) 4 SCC 479; (2008) 2 SCC 316; 2013 (3) SCALE 561; (2003) 4 SCC 166; (2008) 9 SCC 632; 1992 Cri LJ 1028 (MP) – Relied upon

       1990 Cri LJ 1880 (AP) – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The marriage between the appellant and the husband was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ritual, and in the wedlock a son was born. The respondent, under certain circumstances, had to leave the marital home and thereafter filed an application under Section 125 of the Code claiming Rs.6000/- per month towards maintenance. The Family Court finally decided the matter awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the respondent- wife and Rs.1500/- to the second respondent-son. The learned Family Judge came to hold that the respondent-wife was entitled to maintenance and, accordingly, fixed the quantum and directed that the maintenance to be paid from the date of the order.

       The respondent-wife preferred S.B. Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court and the learned single Judge directed that the maintenance should be granted from the date of filing of the application.

       Finding of the Court:

       Wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of application, not the date of award.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgement Key Points

Family Courts, while dealing with applications under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must prioritize expeditious adjudication to fulfill the objective of providing social justice, preventing destitution, vagrancy, and financial suffering for the wife and children unable to sustain themselves. (!) [1000542860012][1000542860013] Liberal or routine adjournments, particularly those sought by the husband, defeat the purpose of the legislation and cause immense hardship, as seen where a wife received no support for nine years during pendency.[1000542860003][1000542860004][1000542860013] The provision embodies the husband's obligation to provide financial support promptly so the wife can maintain her status and dignity without becoming destitute.[1000542860002] Though not expressly termed "interim," the court upheld directing maintenance from the date of application (rather than the date of final order) where delays occurred and the wife suffered without aid, requiring no special reasons for such direction.[1000542860014][1000542860015] (!) Arrears may be paid in phased manner alongside ongoing monthly payments.[1000542860015]


JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The two issues that pronouncedly emanate in this appeal by special leave are whether the Family Court while deciding an application under Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for brevity, “the Act”) which includes determination of grant of maintenance to the persons as entitled under that provision, should allow adjournments in an extremely liberal manner remaining oblivious of objects and reasons of the Act and also keeping the windows of wisdom closed and the sense of judicial responsiveness suspended to the manifest perceptibility of vagrancy, destitution, impecuniosity, struggle for survival and the emotional fracture, a wife likely to face under these circumstances and further exhibiting absolute insensitivity to her condition, who, after loosing support of the husband who has failed to husband the marital status denies the wife to have maintenance for almost nine years as that much time is consumed to decide the lis and, in addition, to restrict the grant of maintenance to the date of order on some kind of individual notion. Both the approaches, as we perceive, not only defeat the command of the legislature but also frustrate the hope of wife and children who are deprived of adequate livelihood and whose aspirations perish like mushroom and possibly the brief candle of sustenance joins the marathon race of extinction. This delay in adjudication by the Family Court is not only against human rights but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual.

3. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.

4. Presently to the facts which lie in an extremely small compass. The marriage between the appellant and the husband was solemnized on 27.11.1997 as per Hindu rites and ritual, and in the wedlock a son was born on 16.12.1998. The respondent, under certain circumstances, had to leave the marital home and thereafter filed an application on 28.8.2002 under Section 125 of the Code in the Family Court, Jaipur, Rajasthan, claiming Rs.6000/- per month towards maintenance. The Family Court finally decided the matter on 24.8.2011 awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the respondent- wife and Rs.1500/- to the second respondent-son. Be it stated, during the continuance of the Family Court proceedings, number of adjournments were granted, some taken by the husband and some by the wife. The learned Famil


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top