Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 2310

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Pratima Devi & Anr - Appellants
Versus
Anand Prakash - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2019)
Decided on : 16-09-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR, Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv., Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv., Ms. Ankita Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Akansha Choudhari, Adv., Ms. Akansha Rai, Adv., Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv.

The duty of a husband/father to maintain his wife and child unless there are very special reasons for not doing so, and the requirement for the higher Court to not normally stay such an order unless there are very special reasons.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - The court set aside the stay order issued by the High Court and directed the payment of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court, emphasizing the duty of a husband/father to maintain his wife and child unless there are very special reasons for not doing so.
Fact of the Case:

The wife and minor son of the respondent filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court. The Family Court granted maintenance ex-parte, which was challenged by the respondent in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court's stay order showed a total non-application of mind and emphasized the duty of a husband/father to maintain his wife and child unless there are very special reasons for not doing so. The court set aside the stay order and directed the payment of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court, while allowing the High Court to pass an appropriate reasoned order after hearing the parties.
Issues: The issue was the grant of maintenance to the wife and minor son, and the challenge to the ex-parte order by the respondent in the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of a husband/father to maintain his wife and child unless there are very special reasons for not doing so, and the requirement for the higher Court to not normally stay such an order unless there are very special reasons.
Final Decision: The court set aside the High Court's stay order and directed the payment of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court, while allowing the High Court to pass an appropriate reasoned order after hearing the parties.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court’s stay order without reasoned grounds was criticized; maintenance should be paid unless very special reasons exist. (!) - The Family Court had granted maintenance ex-parte to wife and minor son; the High Court's stay order is set aside and payment as awarded by the Family Court is directed. (!) (!) - The Higher Court may pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties; this order does not prevent the High Court from confirming, modifying, or vacating the Family Court’s order. (!) - The decision emphasizes the duty of a husband/father to maintain his wife and child unless very special reasons exist. (!) - The appeal proceedings relate to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. (!) - The respondents/appeal involved ex-parte maintenance award of Rs. 20,000 total (Rs. 10,000 to wife and Rs. 10,000 to minor). (!) - The High Court’s stay order was found to reflect total non-application of mind. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Though served, no one appears for the respondent. The appellants, the wife and minor son of the respondent had filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Principal Judge by order dated 03.10.2017 passed an order granting maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- to the appellants, (Rs. 10,000/-to the wife and Rs. 10,000/-to the minor son). This order was passed ex-parte. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order which application was rejected on 05.09.2018. Aggrieved, the respondent filed criminal revision No. 986 of 2018 before the High Court. Along with revision petition an application for stay was filed. The orders passed in the said petitions read as follows :

List on 25th November, 2019, in the meantime, execution proceedings be kept in abeyance.”

3. We are constrained to observe that this order shows total non-application of mind on the part of the High court. This was a case where maintenance had been granted to a wife and to a minor son. The High Court without recording any reason whatsoever, has stayed the grant of maintenance both to the wife and to the minor son. This should not be done. A husband/father is duty bound to maintain his wife and child. Unless there are very special reasons, the higher Court should not normally stay such an order. In the present case no reason has been mentioned justifying the grant of the stay order.

4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the payment of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court. We, however, make it clear that the High Court after hearing the parties may pass an appropriate reasoned order. We make it clear that this order will not come in the way of the High Court confirming, modifying or vacating the order of the Family Court.

5. The appeal is, accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document