IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Inderpaul Aggarwal - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 549 of 2018; Crl.M.A. No. 11791 of 2018
Decided On : 14-06-2021
Maintenance - Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24 - Section 125 Cr.P.C - Section 397(2) Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C after disputes arose between her and her husband, who had also filed for divorce. The Family Court declined maintenance to the wife and granted maintenance to the children. The wife challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife, despite being employed, was responsible for the entire expenditure of the son who had attained majority, and the maintenance granted to her was insufficient. The court held that the obligation of the father does not cease when the child attains majority if the child is not able to sustain himself.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C and the responsibility of the father towards his children even after they attain majority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C to prevent destitution of a deserted wife and children, and held that the wife's income was insufficient to sustain the family. The court also highlighted the ongoing responsibility of the father towards his children even after they attain majority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition in part, granting the wife interim maintenance and directing the Family Court to dispose of the petition expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.04.2018, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, declining maintenance to the petitioner No.1/wife and granting maintenance only to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein.
2. The facts leading to the present petition are as under:
a) The petitioner No.1 got married to the respondent herein on 11.11.1997. Out of the wed-lock two children i.e. the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were born on 14.8.2000 and 14.8.2002 respectively. b) Disputes arose between petitioner No.1 and the respondent herein. Petitioner No.1/wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance.
c) The respondent/husband instituted a suit for divorce. d) During the pendency of the divorce petition, the petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance. The Family Court declined maintenance to the petitioner No.1 and granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the two children which was later enhanced to Rs.13,000/- per month.
e) A decree of divorce was granted on 28.11.2011.
f) The petitioner No.1 filed MAT. APP. No.6/2012 challenging the decree of divorce, which is pending before this Court. This Court vide order dated 25.03.2015 directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
g) The respondent has married again and has got a child from the second marriage.
h) A perusal of the material on record shows that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent are both Government employees. The petitioner No.1, at the time when the impugned order was passed, was working as an Upper Divisional Clerk in Delhi Municipal Corporation and the respondent is working as a Joint General Manager (HR) with the Airports Authority of India. The monthly income of the petitioner No.1, in the affidavit filed by her in the year 2016, is shown as Rs.43,792/- per month and she has stated that her monthly expenditure is Rs.75,000/-. She also stated that her net income is Rs.37,762/- per month. On the other hand, according to the affidavit dated 06.02.2016, filed by the respondent, he was earning a gross salary of Rs.96,089/- per month.
i) The petitioner No.1 moved an application for grant of interim maintenance claiming a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. The learned Family Court after considering various factors came to the conclusion that since the petitioner No.1 is earning sufficiently for herself, she is not entitled to any maintenance. As far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the learned Family Court apportioned the income of the respondent into 4 shares, out of which two shares have been given to the respondent and one share each i.e. 25% has been given to the two children. Out of 25% for each children, as directed by the Family Court, the respondent had to pay 12.5% to each of the child out of his gross income less minimum statutory deductions which were to be computed by the employer of the respondent. The learned Family Court has said that the petitioner No.2 i.e. the son of the parties would be entitled for maintenance till he attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.3 i.e. the daughter would be entitled for the maintenance till she gets employment or gets married whichever is earlier. The learned Family Court further said that since the respondent has to maintain his son, born from his second marriage, it was directed that from the date of birth of his son from the second marriage, the share of the respondent shall be 10% each for 2 kids, from the wedlock with the petitioner No.1, as his entire salary was apportioned to five shares (two for the respondent, one each for the three kids). It has been held that since the second wife of the respondent herein is also working, she has the liability to bear 50% of the cost of her son, thereby making the share of the respondent herein as 10% towards the child from the second marriage. The order
The obligation of a father towards his children does not cease when the child attains majority if the child is not able to sustain himself.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the husband to provide maintenance to his wife and children, even if the wife is earning some income. The judgment also emphasizes the ....
The discretion of the Magistrate in awarding maintenance and the need to prevent vagrancy and destitution were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
The duty of the husband to maintain his wife and the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and support the wife and children.
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C should be awarded from the date of the application, and evidence is essential to substantiate income claims.
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must reflect the financial status of the husband and the needs of the wife, ensuring adequate support for her living expenses.
Interim maintenance orders are final and enforceable, reflecting the husband's obligation to support his wife and children, irrespective of the wife's prior earnings.
Grant of interim maintenance – Magistrate is required to find out what is required by wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but is modestly consistent with st....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.