Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
Smt. Parul Tyagi - Petitioner
Versus
Gaurav Tyagi - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 8162 of 2023
Decided On : 04-08-2023
The court issued guidelines to be followed by the Family Courts in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The guidelines include the mandatory requirement of an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, a time frame for deciding the application for interim maintenance, and the enforcement of maintenance orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Smt. Parul Tyagi, entered into matrimony with the respondent, Gaurav Tyagi, on 17th February, 2009, adhering to Hindu rituals and ceremonies in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. During the marriage, the petitioner's family spent approximately Rs.15 lacs, and dowry items were presented to the respondent's family within their means. Subsequently, the respondent and his family subjected the petitioner to both mental and physical torment, demanding an additional dowry of Rs.5 lacs. No child was born from this union. In an attempt to meet the in-laws' demands, the petitioner's family gave Rs.50,000/- twice and even gave/gifted a RITZ car; however, the demands remained unsatisfied. Following this, the respondent and his family expelled the petitioner from their residence, issuing threats to kill her if she failed to give Rs.5 lacs. Since then, the petitioner has been residing with her parents.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the delay in the disposal of cases erodes public faith in the judicial process. The court noted that a large number of maintenance applications are pending before the Family Courts and that the applications remain pending for years, completely nullifying the law's object. The court further observed that the non-adherence of the Supreme Court guidelines by subordinate courts undermines the very essence of the rule of law, leading to unequal treatment leading to erosion of judicial precedent, perpetuating injustice and inequality, loss of public confidence in the judiciary by the citizens, and a fragmented legal landscape, where each court operates independently.
Issues: 1. Whether the Family Courts are following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Case (2021) 2 SCC 324 in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC? 2. What are the reasons for the delay in the disposal of maintenance applications? 3. What are the consequences of the non-adherence of the Supreme Court guidelines by subordinate courts?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Family Courts are not consistently and uniformly following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Case (2021) 2 SCC 324 in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The court further held that the delay in the disposal of maintenance applications is due to the substantial backlog of pending cases and the failure of the Family Courts to give priority to such applications. The court also held that the non-adherence of the Supreme Court guidelines by subordinate courts undermines the very essence of the rule of law, leading to unequal treatment leading to erosion of judicial precedent, perpetuating injustice and inequality, loss of public confidence in the judiciary by the citizens, and a fragmented legal landscape, where each court operates independently.
Final Decision: The court issued guidelines to be followed by the Family Courts in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The guidelines include the mandatory requirement of an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, a time frame for deciding the application for interim maintenance, and the enforcement of maintenance orders. The court also directed the District Judges to develop a structural system for regularly assessing and overseeing the performance of family courts within their districts, ensuring the adherence to directives issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Case (2021) 2 SCC 324 and by this Court, in the instant case.
Key Points: - The High Court observed that delays in case disposal erode public faith in the judicial process and that many maintenance applications remain pending for years, nullifying the law's object (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Non-adherence to Supreme Court guidelines by subordinate courts undermines the rule of law, leads to unequal treatment, erodes judicial precedent, perpetuates injustice, and causes a loss of public confidence (!) (!) . - The court issued guidelines for Family Courts in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, including the mandatory requirement of an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities (!) (!) . - Guidelines include a time frame for deciding interim maintenance applications (within four to six months) (!) (!) (!) . - The court directed District Judges to develop a system for regularly assessing and overseeing the performance of Family Courts within their districts to ensure adherence to Supreme Court and High Court directives (!) (!) . - Maintenance orders are to be enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, or as a money decree under CPC (!) (!) . - The court emphasized that maintenance is a constitutional right and an element of universal human rights, aimed at preventing vagrancy and ensuring financial support for dependent spouses (!) . - The Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh Case (2021) 2 SCC 324 provides comprehensive guidelines for Family Courts in maintenance proceedings (!) (!) . - District Judges are to convene semi-annual meetings with Family Court Judges to review the implementation of guidelines and submit reports to the High Court if guidelines are not followed (!) . - The court stressed the importance of judicial officers recognizing the weight of their responsibility and approaching each case with sensitivity, empathy, and a deep understanding of the human aspect involved to foster public confidence (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This petition stems from a series of miscellaneous ineffective orders passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar in O.S. No.976/11 of 2022. The petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to expedite disposal of the aforesaid O.S. No.976/11 of 2022 titled as Parul Tyagi Vs. Gaurav Tyagi. For clarity, the relief sought before this Court is outlined below :
ii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
A. Brief Facts and Background of The Case
3. The petitioner, Smt. Parul Tyagi, entered into matrimony with the respondent, Gaurav Tyagi, on 17th February, 2009, adhering to Hindu rituals and ceremonies in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. During the marriage, the petitioner's family spent approximately Rs.15 lacs, and dowry items were presented to the respondent's family within their means. Subsequently, the respondent and his family subjected the petitioner to both mental and physical torment, demanding an additional dowry of Rs.5 lacs. No child was born from this union. In an attempt to meet the in-laws' demands, the petitioner's family gave Rs.50,000/- twice and even gave/gifted a RITZ car; however, the demands remained unsatisfied. Following this, the respondent and his family expelled the petitioner from their residence, issuing threats to kill her if she failed to give Rs.5 lacs. Since then, the petitioner has been residing with her parents.
4. The petitioner claims that she has been living with her parents since 23.7.2017, and is unable to sustain herself. Her husband does not support her or pay maintenance to meet-out her daily chores. The petitioner contends that her husband earns almost Rs.26 lacs a year, whereas, even though she is doctorate from IIT, but is unemployed and finding it hard to sustain herself; besides these contentions, other disputed facts have also been raised by both the parties before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”).
5. By order dated 10.5.2022, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/-per month since 22.8.2017, i.e. the date of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C.
6. The husband-respondent challenged the order dated 10.5.2022 before this Court in Criminal Revision No.2780 of 2022. This Court, vide order dated 17.5.2023, dismissed the aforesaid revision petition and upheld the order passed by the Family Court. The relevant portion is extracted herein below :
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against order dated 10.05.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar in Case No.510 of 2017 (Smt. Parul Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi) by which application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.20,000/-per month as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 22.08.2017 and amount deposited by the revisionist as maintenance in other case shall be adjusted.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that there is no question of quantum. Revisionist is working as General Manager and opposite party no.2 is a highly educated lady doing PhD. from I.I.T., Delhi and at present doing research in I.I.T., Roorkee and getting Rs.50,000/-per month and Rs.2,00,000/- annually for research purpose. She was also posted in Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab as Assistant Professor from where she ha
Maintenance proceeding – Speedy trial/enquiry is fundamental rights of parties – Principle of natural justice shall be followed while adjudicating petition.
The judiciary must enforce compliance with its own directives to ensure timely justice in maintenance cases, as systemic delays undermine the rule of law and affect vulnerable parties.
Judicial officers must maintain integrity in personal litigation; timely resolution of maintenance applications is essential to prevent destitution.
The obligation to maintain dependents is continuous and independent of other proceedings, rooted in social justice provisions protecting vulnerable individuals.
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for maintenance proceedings, including the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities.
(1) Right to get maintenance embodies sacrosanct principles of social justice.(2) Liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the legal and basic obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor children, as supported by Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Article 15(3) of ....
The court established that maintenance claims under different statutes must be adjusted to prevent overlapping and ensure fair support for dependents.
The absence of affidavits of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings violates Supreme Court guidelines, necessitating their submission for fair assessment.
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
