Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Zahir Abdullah & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Omar Abdullah – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 604 of 2018 & Cr.M.A. 28262 of 2018 & Cr.REV.P. 605 of 2018
Decided On : 31-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Advocates with Petitioners-in-person in Cr.REV.P. 604 of 2018 & Cr.M.A. 28262 of 2018.
Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Trisha Gupta, Mr. Prateek Awasthi, Advocates, for the Respondent in Cr.REV.P. 604 of 2018 & Cr.M.A. 28262 of 2018.

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 obligation of the father to contribute towards the education of his children, irrespective of their age.

Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - FAMILY LAW - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - 397/401 - 482 - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Foreign Marriage Act - [125, 397/401, 482] - The Court discussed the scope of revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. and the principles underlying the scope of revision. The Court also highlighted the legal provisions and principles governing the award of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the factors to be considered in determining the quantum of maintenance. The Court emphasized the duty of the husband to provide maintenance to his wife and children, even if the wife is earning some income. The Court also addressed the issue of maintenance for major sons and the obligation of the father to contribute towards their education. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework applied by the court in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the grant of maintenance to the wife and children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The wife, Payal Abdullah, sought maintenance for herself and her two children from her husband, Omar Abdullah, who is a former Chief Minister. The husband had abandoned the family and refused to provide financial support despite having sufficient means. The court was tasked with determining the entitlement to maintenance and the quantum of maintenance for the wife and children.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the husband, Omar Abdullah, had the financial means to provide maintenance to his wife and children. The Court increased the interim maintenance amount for the wife from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,50,000 per month and directed the husband to pay Rs.60,000 per month for each son for their education. The Court also emphasized the duty of the father to contribute towards the education of his children, even if they are majors. The Court directed the expeditious disposal of the maintenance petition within 12 months.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the entitlement to maintenance for the wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the determination of the quantum of maintenance, and the obligation of the father to contribute towards the education of his children.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the husband has a legal and moral duty to provide maintenance to his wife and children, even if the wife is earning some income. The Court emphasized the duty of the father to contribute towards the education of his children, irrespective of their age. The Court also highlighted the factors to be considered in determining the quantum of maintenance, including the financial capacity of the parties, the standard of living, and the mode of life enjoyed by the wife and children.
Final Decision: The Court increased the interim maintenance amount for the wife and directed the husband to pay a specific amount for the education of each son. The Court also directed the expeditious disposal of the maintenance petition within 12 months.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. CRL.REV.P. 604/2018 has been filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") challenging the Order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, in M-Petition No. 111/2016, whereby the grant of maintenance to both the Petitioners in CRL.REV.P. 604/2018 under Section 125 of the Code was rejected and the Petitioner No.1 in CRL.REV.P. 604/2018 was granted maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for a limited period of 3 months till he attained the age of majority.

2. CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 has been filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the Order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, in M-Petition No. 111/2016, wherein a sum of Rs.75,000/- as interim maintenance was granted to the Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018.

3. For ease of comprehension, the Petitioners in both the petitions shall be referred to by their names, i.e. Zahir Abdullah and Zamir Abdullah who are Petitioners No.1 and 2 in CRL.REV.P. 604/2018, and Payal Abdullah, who is the Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018.

4. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the petitions are as follows:

a) It is stated that the marriage between Payal Abdullah and Omar Abdullah was solemnized on 01.09.1994 under civil law in England. Two children, namely the Petitioners in CRL.REV.P. 604/2018, were born to the couple, and during the pendency of the petition, they were pursuing law at Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat.

b) It is stated that Omar Abdullah, the Respondent, is the son of Mr. Farooq Abdullah, and the grand-son of Sheikh Abdullah; both are well-known politicians and were Chief Ministers of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir during their point of time. The Respondent himself is the former Chief Minister of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

c) It is stated that the Respondent has abandoned the Petitioners since 2013 and filed for dissolution of marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act read with Sections 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, vide Order dated 30.08.2016 dismissed the FMA No. 01/2013. An appeal against the same has been filed by the Respondent before this Hon'ble Court, being MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 135/2016.

d) It is stated that thereafter, the Respondent physically threw the Petitioners out of their house at Akbar Road, New Delhi without any prior notice on 22.08.2016. The Petitioners were rendered homeless and were forced to take refuge at various places before finding a rented accommodation at Kapashera, Delhi.

e) It is stated that Payal Abdullah has single-handedly raised her two children, one of whom was a minor at the time of filing of the application before the District Court. Further, she is unemployed and is also a recipient of "Z" security with her children being "Z+" protectees. It is stated that Omar Abdullah has refused to maintain the Petitioners despite having sufficient financial means and is currently living in luxury at a 2200 Sq. Yard plot in Nizamuddin, New Delhi.

f) It is stated that in absence of the Respondent coming forward to discharge his responsibilities as a father and a husband, Payal Abdullah was constrained to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and the two children, vide M-Petition bearing No. 111/2016.

g) It is stated that during the pendency of the aforementioned MAT Petition No. 111/2016, the Respondent herein challenged the Order dated 09.09.2016 passed in M-Petition, 111/2016 and sought the quashing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C before this Hon'ble Court. Vide Order dated 01.12.2017 in CRL.M.C. 4717/2017, this Court observed that "maintainability of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and question of award of interim maintenance are insepa