Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Dinesh Khushaldas Sambawani - Applicant
Versus
Mala Dinesh Shambwani, D/o. Decd Brijlal Gopaldas Lalchandani, W/o. Dinesh Khusaldas Sambhani & Anr. - Respondents
R/Criminal Revision Application(For Maintenance) No. 1177 of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. D.R. Bhatt.
For the Respondents: Ms. Bhakti M. Joshi, Mr. S.M. Joshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that a husband's moral duty to provide maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot be absolved by the wife's education or earning capacity, and an able-bodied person is presumed capable of earning to maintain their spouse.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - 397, 401 - 125(4) - 125 Cr.P.C. - 397, 401 - 125(4)
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist-husband challenged the judgment of the Family Court granting monthly maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The husband argued that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and was capable of maintaining herself. He also claimed financial constraints due to job loss. The wife contended that the husband was capable of maintaining her and had outstanding arrears of maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's departure from the matrimonial home indicated destitution, entitling her to maintenance. It emphasized the husband's moral duty to provide maintenance and rejected the argument that the wife's education and earning capacity absolved the husband of this duty. The court also noted the husband's failure to pay arrears of maintenance, adding to the wife's financial burden.
Issues: The issues revolved around the wife's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the husband's financial capacity, and the moral duty to provide maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the scope and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing its purpose to prevent destitution and provide immediate relief to deserted wives. It highlighted the husband's moral duty to maintain his wife, irrespective of her education or earning capacity, and the presumption that an able-bodied person is capable of earning to maintain their spouse.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upheld the maintenance order, and imposed a cost on the husband for using the revision to harass the destitute wife.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the revisionist – husband challenges the judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2630 of 2015 by which the learned Family Judge in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was pleased to grant monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/- from 12.10.2015. The cost of Rs.2,500/- is also imposed.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition can be summarized as under :-

2.1 The revisionist – husband and respondent No.1 got married on 27.09.2012 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Ahmedabad. After some passage of time, there were some disputes arose between both husband and wife and they got separated in May, 2015. After said period, both husband and wife did not remain together. Hence, the respondent No.1 – wife filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., being Criminal Misc. Application No.2630 of 2015 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad and on 03.06.2022, the Family Court, Ahmedabad has passed the impugned judgment and order directing the revisionist – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from 12.10.2015. Hence, the present petition.

3. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Bhakti Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – wife.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt would assail the impugned order on two aspects. Firstly, that the learned Family Court has not considered the aspect that without any sufficient reason the wife has left the matrimonial home and therefore, in view of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the wife is not entitled to get the maintenance. Secondly, he would submit that wife is holding Company Secretary (C.S.) degree and she is capable of maintaining herself. In addition thereto, it is also submitted that the husband who was serving on a higher post in Jet Airways has lost his job as Jet Airways is closed and it is under liquidation and therefore, the petitioner has no means to pay the maintenance. Apart from these submissions, he would also submit that the revisionist – husband is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his unmarried sister as well as parents. Therefore, he would submit that the granting of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance is too excessive and without application of mind. He would further submit that learned Family Court has erred in interpreting the evidence on record. The wife had given irrelevant answers in the cross-examination undertaken at the behest of the husband. She was not remembering various things and therefore, he would submit that the wife was failed to make out case to get maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

5. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit to allow this revision and to quash the impugned order or alternatively to modify the impugned order and to reduce the maintenance amount.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Bhakti Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – wife fervently objecting to this revision would submit that the revisionist husband is paying monthly installment of Rs.86,000/- towards repayment of loan, even after his version that he has lost the job. This itself is sufficient to say that the revisionist husband is capable to maintain the respondent – wife. She would further submit that the scope and object of Section 125 is to provide immediate relief to enduring destituted wife. It is a social justice. No adversarial system of litigation can be applied here. She would further submit that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the income of the wife also which was barely around Rs.12,000/- and compared the standard of living of husband and wife. The husband was earning Rs.1,25,000/- and was paying Rs.86,000/- towards loan installment. She would further submit that merely because wife is lite