The court upheld that maintenance cases should not be dismissed for default when the petitioner is unable to appear due to circumstances beyond their control, reinforcing a parent's responsibility to their children's welfare.

ORDER

The revision petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. The revision petitioners filed a petition for maintenance for the children from the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . 2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 27.05.2002 as per the Christian Religious Rites and Customs. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were born in her wedlock with the respondent. Petitioner No.1 alleged that the respondent continuously tortured her mentally and physically. She further alleged that the respondent refused to pay maintenance to her children. Petitioner No.1 is working as Staff Nurse at Aramco hospital.

3. Petitioner No. 1 filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for and on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, who are minors, as M.C. No. 202/2016. The Family Court, by order dated 09.02.2022, dismissed the application as petitioner No. 1 was absent on that day. . The impugned order reads thus:-

“Petitioner absent though the MC is of 2016. No application is filed by the petitioner. Hence MC is dismissed.:”

4. The above order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Family Court could not have dismissed the application for default. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no specific provision in the CrPC to dismiss an application filed under Chapter IX of the CrPC.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there has been willful laches on the part of petitioner No.1 in prosecuting the matter. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is not liable to pay maintenance for the period during which the maintenance case remained dismissed.

8. Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Chapter X of BNSS), which comprises Sections 125 to 128, contains provision for maintenance. The provision was aimed at preventing starvation and vagrancy, and at avoiding the destitution of the wife and children by providing food, clothing, and shelter through a speedy remedy.

9. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316] , the Supreme Court observed that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing and shelter. The Apex Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court highlighted that the the objective of the provision is always to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives, children and parents who are left to fend for themselves.

10. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others [(2015) 6 SCC 353] the Supreme Court held that the concept of sustenance did 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’ and the wife would be entitled in law to lead a life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.

11. In Rajnesh vs. Neha and another [(2021) 2 SCC 324] , this Court emphasized that maintenance laws were enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

12. In the present case, petitioner No.1 filed an application seeking maintenance for her children born in her wedlock