SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ker) 263

Judges : S.SAGHIR AHMAD,D.P.WADHWA
Rajathi - Appellant
Versus
Ganesan - Respondent
Case No : Crl.A. No. 687 of 1999
Decided On : 07/22/1999
Advocates Appeared :
S. Sivasubramaniam; For Appellant R. Mohan; For Respondent

The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children, and parents, and the burden of proof on the husband to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Appeal - S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code - S.482 - S.494 of the Indian Penal Code - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - [MAINTENANCE] - [Wife's Appeal] - [S.125 of the Code, S.482 of the Code, S.494 of the IPC, S.18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956] - The court discussed the provisions of S.125 of the Code, which provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents, and the limitations and conditions for granting maintenance. The court also considered the implications of S.482 of the Code, which outlines the inherent powers of the High Court, and the provisions of S.494 of the IPC and S.18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in relation to maintenance and the rights of a Hindu wife to live separately from her husband. The court emphasized the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children, and parents, and the burden of proof on the husband to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation. The court also highlighted the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers and the need for a prima facie view of the matter in cases under S.125 of the Code.

Fact of the Case:

Wife filed a petition under S.125 of the Code claiming maintenance from her husband. The lower courts granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/- per month, but the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under S.482 of the Code, set aside the orders and dismissed the petition for maintenance. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction under S.482 of the Code in passing the impugned order. The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The court awarded Rs.1,000/- as cost to the appellant.

Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in invoking its inherent powers under S.482 of the Code to set aside the orders granting maintenance to the wife.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children, and parents, and the burden of proof on the husband to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation. The court also highlighted the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers and the need for a prima facie view of the matter in cases under S.125 of the Code.

Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The court awarded Rs.1,000/- as cost to the appellant.

Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. This is wife's appeal against order dated December 4,1997 of the Madras High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Code' for short). By this order wife was deprived of maintenance of Rs.200/- per month granted to her under S.125 of the Code.

3. Wife presented a petition under S.125 of the Code on February 3,1993 claiming from her husband, the respondent, maintenance for herself and her two daughters. The minor son of the parties is living with the husband. In the present appeal we are concerned with the grant of maintenance to the wife. She alleged that her husband having sufficient means neglected or refused to maintain her and that she was unable to maintain herself. In the petition wife had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month.

4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated April 24,1995, granted her maintenance only at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. Husband felt aggrieved and he went in revision to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Salem, by order dated November 5,1996 dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband and confirmed the order of grant of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. Still feeling aggrieved husband filed a petition under S.482 of the Code in the Madras High Court. This was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who by the impugned order, set aside the orders both of the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and dismissed the petition of the wife for maintenance. Now the wife has come to this Court.

5. Proceeding under S.125 of the Code are of summary nature. This Section is meant to provide immediate relief to the wife, minor children and parents, who are unable to maintain themselves. A maximum of Rs.500/- per month can be granted to the wife under this Section. This will be when husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain her, she being unable to maintain herself. S.125 we may quote in extenso:

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain

his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself;

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this Chapter,

(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top