LexBHUWAN MOHAN SINGH versus MEENA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014) 8 S.C.R. 858 BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH v. MEENA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2014) JULY 15, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984: C s. 7of1984 Act rlw s. 125, CrPC- Duty of Family Court - Explained Application of wife and child remained pending in Family Court for nine years - Family Court granting maintenance to wife and child from the date of order - Held: Both the approaches, i.e., allowing adjournments in extremely o liberal manner remaining oblivious of objects and reasons of the Act and restricting the grant of maintenance to the date of order on some kind of individual notion, not only defeat the command of the legislature but also frustrate the hope of wife and the child who are deprived of adequate livelihood *"'.7'" The E delay in adjudication by Family Court is not only against human rights but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual - Family Court Judges are to decide. the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the objects and reasons of the Act and the scheme of various F statutory provisions - Human rights. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 125 - Maintenance of w~fe and child - Relevant date of grant of maintenance - Maintenance awarded by Family G Court from date of order - High .-Court directing main"tenance to be paid from date of application - Held: Wife is entitled to get maintenance from the husband unless there is an order from the court that she is not entit1ed to get maintenance on any legally permissible grounds - As regards tire relevant H 858 BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH v. MEENA & ORS~ 859 date of grant of maintenance, in the instant case, there was A enormous d~lay in disposal of the proceeding u/s 125 and most of the time husband had taken adjournments and some times the court dealt with the matter showing total laxity- The ; circumstances required grant of maintenance from the date .of application - However, While paying the monthly B maintenance, as fixed by Family Court, by 5th of each succeeding month, the arrears shall be paid in a proportionate manner within a period of three years, s. 125, Cr. P. C. rlw s. 7 of Family Court Act - Object of - Explained -Application of wife and child for maintenance - C Adjournments - Held: In the instant case, proceedings before Family Court were conducted without being alive to the· objects and reasons of the Act and the spirit of the provisions u/s 125 - The case continued for nine years before Family Court - Family Court Judge, while granting adjournments, D is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with , extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining· to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto - Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with - Family Court Act, 1984 - s. 7. E The marriage between the appellant- husband and the res·pondent-wife, was solemnized on 27.11.1997, as per Hindu rites. The couple was blessed with a son on 16.12.1998. The respondent was compelled to leave the F marital home and she filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 28.8.2002. The Family Court decided the matter on 24.8.2011 awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent wife and Rs. 1,500/- to the second . respondent-son. The maintenance was directed to be G paid from the date of the order. However, the High Court directed the maintenance to be paid from the date of the application. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the application of the wife remained pending in the Family Court for nine years. Further, the Family Court granted maintenance from the date of the order. Thus, both the approaches, i.e., allowing , adjournments in extremely liberal manner remaining B oblivious of objects and reasons of the Family Court Act, 1984 and restricting the grant of maintenance to the date of order on some kind of individual notion, not only defeat the command of the legislature but also frustrate the hope of wife and the child who are deprived of c adequate livelihood. The delay in adjudication by the Family Court is not only against human rights but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. [para 2] [863-E-G] 1.2. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, D 1973 was conceived to ameliorate the. financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial ho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.