LexANJU GARG & ANR versus DEEPAK KUMAR GARG
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 909 ANJU GARG & ANR. v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG (Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 125 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents – Basis purpose u/s. 125 – Held: Is to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children – Husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds – On facts, the wife on account of harassment and cruelty by husband, was forced to leave her matrimonial home alongwith her children, sought maintenance u/s. 125 – High Court without assigning any reasons, upheld the erroneous and perverse order of the family court rejecting maintenance application of mother and her daughter – Having regard to the evidence on record, it is clear that the husband had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, and had failed and neglected to maintain the wife and his children – In view thereof, wife to be paid maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance petition over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the family court to the son. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. In the instant case, the Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not [2022] 5 S.C.R. 909 909 A B C D E F G H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R. avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 9 and 10][914-E-F; 916-E-G] 1.2 An erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order. [Para 12][917-G- H] 1.3 The Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept the submission of the respondent that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed. The respondent being an able- bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, it is proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son. Thus, the respondent is directed pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant- wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. [Paras 13 and 14][918-A-D] Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353 : [2014] 8 SCR 858; Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 : [2007] 12 SCR 577 – relied on. A B C D E F G H 911 Case Law Reference [2014] 8 SCR 858 relied on Para 9 [2007] 12 SCR 577 relied on Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revisi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.