Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Vasu Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Bajaj – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court held that a civil suit for recovery of maintenance, once a final order is issued under Section 125 Cr.P.C, acquires the character of a debt and is therefore maintainable (!) (!) .
The right to recover arrears in maintenance persists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in Section 125(3) Cr.P.C, and such arrears can be recovered through a civil suit (!) (!) .
Maintenance is a social and moral obligation of the husband, and its enforcement is rooted in the relationship of support rather than contractual obligation (!) (!) .
When maintenance becomes due and is crystallized by a court order or decree, it is considered a legal debt, which can be recovered via civil proceedings if not recovered through enforcement mechanisms under the Cr.P.C (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits for recovery of maintenance is not barred by law, provided that the amount due is crystallized by a court order or decree (!) (!) .
The liability to pay maintenance is continuous and can be enforced through any available legal mode, including civil suits, once the amount is determined and due (!) (!) .
The remedy of executing an order for maintenance under Cr.P.C is limited to the period within the prescribed limitation, but the amount owed prior to that period remains recoverable through civil action (!) (!) .
The concept of 'debt' in relation to maintenance is based on the existence of a definite obligation, which, once determined by a court order, becomes a payable amount and thus a debt (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that enforcement of maintenance orders should align with social justice, ensuring dependents receive their due support, and that civil proceedings are a valid remedy for recovery of arrears (!) (!) .
The court's decision was to set aside the earlier judgment dismissing the civil suit and to recognize the suit as maintainable for recovery of the arrears of maintenance, awarding the amount due with interest (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to these points.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. This is a case that clamours for the exercise of judicial conscience to address the conundrum of whether an individual's right to recover arrears in maintenance subsists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in section 125(3) Cr.P.C. It warrants our endeavour to determine whether the jurisprudential principle of Ubi jus ibiremedium which posits that every right has a commensurate remedy stands true when it is confronted with the letter of the law i.e. Section 125 Cr.P.C in this instance.
2. An Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred against the judgment dated 17.05.2019 dismissing the suit filed by Smt. Nirmal Bajaj on behalf of minor Vasu Bajaj, for recovery of Rs.2,78,800/- on account of the maintenance by the Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. The facts in brief are that the Smt. Nirmal Bajaj, mother of the Appellant got married to Respondent Shri Rakesh Bajaj on 14.12.1999 according to Hindu Marriage Rites and Ceremonies. One child i.e. Master Vasu Bajaj, the Appellant, was born from the said wedlock on 13.11.2000. Disputes arose between the parties and
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
