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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
Deepa – Petitioner
Versus
Balaji – Respondent
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1366 of 2017
Decided On : 13-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Rajagopal.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing financial support to the wife and children during matrimonial proceedings, the differences between the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the need for expeditious disposal of maintenance petitions.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - FAMILY LAW - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24, Section 26, Section 125 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the obligations of a husband towards maintenance of his wife and children, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized the importance of providing financial support to the wife and children during matrimonial proceedings and highlighted the differences between the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The wife filed a maintenance petition seeking support for herself and her children during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. The lower court dismissed the petition based on the existence of a maintenance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower court's dismissal of the maintenance petition was unsustainable in law and highlighted the delay in the disposal of maintenance petitions, emphasizing the impact of such delays on the affected women and children.

Issues: The issues included the dismissal of the maintenance petition based on the existence of a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the delay in the disposal of maintenance petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing financial support to the wife and children during matrimonial proceedings, highlighted the differences between the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., and underscored the need for expeditious disposal of maintenance petitions.

Final Decision: The revision succeeded, and the lower court's order was set aside. The maintenance petition was remanded back to the lower court for fresh disposal according to law, with a directive to dispose of the petition within 15 days.

ORDER :

1. Since only a narrow legal point is involved, we shall dispose of this revision today at the admission stage itself.

2. The revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent. They have married on 3.9.1998 according to Hindu rites and customs in Gudiyatham, Vellore District. They were blessed with three children. They are Vignesh, Dharshini and Harini. They were born on 6.2.2004, on 19.11.2006 and on 11.1.2009 respectively.

3. Marital discordance arose between the spouses. Consequently, they started living separately. The children are stated to be with their mother. In the circumstances, the husband filed HMOP No. 76 of 2013 in the Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, seeking dissolution of his marriage with her on the ground of willful desertion and cruelty. She filed counter refuting his allegations. She also alleged that he ill-treated her with cruelty and also forced her to consent for his second marriage with another woman.

4. She is a homemaker. She has no independent income of her own. She has no financial sources for the survival of herself and her children. In the circumstances, in the HMOP, she filed I.A. No. 20 of 2014 under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance for herself and also for her children.

5. This was opposed to tooth and nail by her husband also on the ground that she is already in receipt of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and Rs. 1,000/- p.m. by each child in MC No. 9 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

6. After hearing both sides, ultimately, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed their maintenance petition on the ground that as already they are in receipt of maintenance under an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham under Section 125 Cr.P.C and if they want more they should have filed a petition for enhancement of maintenance before the learned Magistrate.

7. Aggrieved, this revision has been filed by the wife.

8. An husbands obligation to maintain his wife arises on marriage. Such obligation towards his children arises on their birth. These obligations are imposed on him by operation of law. It is also a moral obligation imposed upon him. It is immoral and illegal to deny them maintenance. In my view, it is a sacred duty of an husband or father, as the case may be, towards his wife and children. This is the least the father of a girl expects from his son-in-law. Otherwise why should he marry a woman and leave her and her children in lurch in the street.

9. Besides the love and affection of their father, the children can also seek financial support from their putative father for their genuine and reasonable needs. It is too cruel on his part to deny them maintenance. There may be many disputes or differences between their parents but that cannot be a reason to refuse them maintenance and make them to suffer. In matrimonial disputes the innocent children are the worst sufferers.

10. In the Old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in Section 488, a provision for maintenance had been made for the wives, children, age old parents to prevent vagrancy among them. When an husband, who had sufficient means/financial capacity had failed and neglected to maintain his wife and children, who are unable to maintain themselves, the said Section 488 can be invoked. The maintenance petition has to be disposed of in a summary manner by the learned Magistrates.

11. In the New Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Chapter IX, Sections 125 to 128 deals with providing of maintenance to wives, children and parents. The object of inserting such a provision in a Criminal statute is to give them immediate relief. And the Magistrates are expected to enquire and dispose of these petitions in a summary manner at the quickest possible time.

12. As per clause (b) of Explanation to Section 125(1), Cr.P.C. even a divorced woman, whether she has been divorced or has obtained divorce can also seek maintenance. Through an amendment made in 2001 provision has been made to provide them
























































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