Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Anju Garg and Another – Appellants
Versus
Deepak Kumar Garg – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 10353 of 2018
Decided On : 28-09-2022
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Object and purpose – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and children – Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children – It also falls within Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of Constitution of India. (Paras 9 and 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Grant of – In absence of any evidence on record adduced by respondent disputing evidence adduced by appellant, Family Court could not have passed order believing oral submissions of Counsel for respondent – She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by respondent, which had constrained her to leave matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children – Even if allegations of demand of dowry by respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to respondent by father of appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment – Family Court granted Maintenance petition so far as son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly misdirected itself by not granting maintenance to appellant-wife – Respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and minor child – It is proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month to appellant-wife, over and above maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by Family Court to son – Respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to appellant-wife from date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before Family Court. (Paras 11, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellants herein are the wife and the son of the respondent. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th September 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 05/2017, whereby High Court has dismissed the Revision application filed by the appellants, challenging order passed by District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad, Haryana. Family Court vide order dated 09.12.2016 had dismissed the Maintenance Petition filed by appellants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., qua appellant no. 1 -wife (original applicant no. 1) and her daughter Ms. Megha Garg (original applicant no. 2), and had allowed the application qua the son-appellant no. 2 (original applicant no.3) granting him maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month from date of filing of application till he attained the age of 18 years.
Findings of Court:
Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was confirmed by High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein are the wife and the son of the respondent. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th September 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 05/2017, whereby the High Court has dismissed the Revision application filed by the appellants, challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”). The Family Court vide order dated 09.12.2016 had dismissed the Maintenance Petition filed by the appellants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. qua the appellant no. 1 -wife (original applicant no. 1) and her daughter Ms. Megha Garg (original applicant no. 2), and had allowed the application qua the son-appellant no. 2 (original applicant no. 3) granting him maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of filing of application till he attained the age of 18 years.
3. The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant no. 1 and the respondent had married on 07.12.1991 as per the Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock, two children i.e. daughter Megha Garg and son Rachit Garg were born on 10.10.1992 and 11.04.1999 respectively. The appellants (original applicants) filed the Maintenance Petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent alleging inter-alia that the respondent was subjecting the appellant-wife to utmost cruelty and physical and mental torture. As a result thereof, she had to leave her matrimonial home along with children time and again. Allegations were also made against the respondent that he was demanding Rs. One crore as dowry from the father of the appellant no. 1. Though, her father had given him Rs. 2,00,000/- in 2005, and had also made payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- to one Rajdip Soan Industries, on behalf of the respondent to pay off the loan, the respondent had continued to harass the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant along with her children left the matrimonial home in 2010 and started residing in a rental premises. According to the appellants-applicants, the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain them, and they being unable to maintain themselves, the Maintenance Petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed.
4. The said petition was contested by the respondent by filing a reply. The respondent while not denying the marriage with the appellant no. 1, had denied the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and harassment. He also denied that he had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. According to him, the appellant had left her matrimonial home along with children without any reason. The respondent while admitting that daughter Megha was born out of his wedlock with the appellant, had alleged that the appellant no. 2 Master Rachit was not his biological son.
5. The Family Court vide the order dated 15.07.2014 had granted Interim Maintenance Allowance of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of the appellants, however, the daughter Megha having attained majority, no interim maintenance was granted to her. It appears that the respondent had filed an application in the Family Court praying for the DNA test to substantiate his allegation that the son Rachit was not his biological son, however his application was dismissed by the Family Court vide order dated 19.02.2014. It further appears that despite issuance of conditional warrants of arrest against the respondent by the Family Court, he had failed to appear in the Court and to make payment of interim maintenance, and therefore his defence was also struck off vide the order dated 16.07.2015. 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 appellant-wife, therefore
Maintenance – Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children.
The court emphasized the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife, particularly in cases of cruelty and dowry demands, reaffirming the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent destitut....
The duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy of deserted wives and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and provide social justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the legal and basic obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor children, as supported by Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Article 15(3) of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it is a measure of social justice to protect women and child....
The obligation to maintain dependents is continuous and independent of other proceedings, rooted in social justice provisions protecting vulnerable individuals.
(1) Right to get maintenance embodies sacrosanct principles of social justice.(2) Liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
