Courts must uphold the dignified living of abandoned spouses by ensuring adequate maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

O R D E R

This revision is filed against the order dated

31.12.2016 in MC No. 58/2011 on the file of the Family Court, Vatakara. The above case was filed by the respondent claiming maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court allowed the same and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. When this revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel who filed the revision submitted that he relinquished the vakalath in the year 2019 and informed the petitioner about the same. There is no representation for the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. This Court perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would show that MC No. 58/2011 was disposed along with OP No. 187/2011, which was filed by the respondent for divorce. MC No. 58/2011 was allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. This Court perused the impugned order. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order because only an amount of Rs.4,000/- is granted as maintenance.

4. Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women, who are abandoned by their husbands. The Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [ 2014 KHC 4455 ] considered this point in detail. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder :

“Be it ingeminated that S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.”

5. Similarly, the Apex Court in Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [ 1978 KHC 607 ]

observed like this:

9. “This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art.15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to the selective in picking out