The obligation of a husband to provide financial support to the wife and children is sacrosanct, and maintenance proceedings are essential to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife and children.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Sri. Gurudath B.S. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dtd. 21/9/2022 passed in Crl.Misc.661/2021 under Sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., which grants maintenance of Rs.4, 000.00 to the wife and Rs.4, 000.00 to the two children born from the wedlock, who are 4 years and 21/2 years, respectively.

3. The petitioner is the husband, the respondent his wife. On the relationship between the two turning sour, certain proceedings are instituted against each other. One such proceeding is instituted by the wife, invoking Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming interim maintenance. The concerned Court after considering the averments made in the petition and the objections, awards maintenance of Rs.4, 000.00 to the wife and Rs.2, 000.00 each to the children, who are 4 years and 21/2 years. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an agricultural coolie and does not have any fixed avocation and his daily earning is about Rs.3, 300.00 and the total earning would come to Rs.9, 000.00. He has aged parents to take care and therefore, he is not in a position to pay any maintenance.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass as to whether the order granting maintenance of Rs.4, 000.00 to the wife and Rs.2, 000.00 each to two of the children, who are aged 4 years and 21/2 years warrants any interference. The plea of the petitioner is that he is not in a position to pay any maintenance to the wife as he has no avocation of the kind that can give him that money to maintain the wife and the children. What is granted by the concerned Court is paltry sum of Rs.4, 000.00to the wife and Rs.2, 000.00 each to the children, born from the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent. If the petitioner does not have an avocation that would fetch him more money, notwithstanding the fact that he is an able-bodied man has to search for an avocation and maintain the wife and the children. Any interference in the order of this kind would run foul of the of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER V. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314. wherein at paragraphs 10 to 14 has held as follows:

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Sec. 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. 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 and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the