awarding any amount of maintenance to the wife is that she being a Notary
Public had a good income and if she is earning, then the husband should not be
fastened with the liability of maintaining his wife. In my view, both the Courts
below have committed a serious error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.
The wife may be earning in thousands, but that would not absolve the husband
from his legal liability to maintain his wife.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena,
reported in 2014 Criminal Law Journal 3979 observed as under:
"3. Be it ingeminated that Section 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.
It shall be open for both the parties
to put forward all contentions available in law, except the contention that the wife is
earning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 18957 of 2015
WITH
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1072 of 2012
SIMABEN MAHESHBHAI SONI
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 7
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 21/10/2015
By this writapplication under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitionerwife has prayed for the following reliefs:
(A) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.8.2011, passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 927/2011 below Exh.3 and the
impugned order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No.
67 of 2011 at Annexure "D" and "G" respectively to this petition, in the
interest of justice.
(B) To grant the relief as prayed for by the present petitioner in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 927/11, in the interest of justice;
(C) To stay the further proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.
927/2011, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmedabad (Rural);
2. It appears from the materials on record that the petitionerwife initiated
proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The same are
registered as Criminal Case No. 927 of 2011 pending in the Court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural). An application Exh.3 for
maintenance was filed by the petitioner. She prayed for maintenance to the
tune of Rs. 12,000 for herself and for her minor daughter.
3. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate partly allowed the
application Exh.3. The Court thought fit not to award any amount of
maintenance to the wife because, according to the learned Magistrate, the wife
is earning, being a Notary Public. However, an amount of Rs. 5,000/ per
month came to be awarded in favour of the minor daughter.
4. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, filed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2011 before the
Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 22.11.2011, was
pleased to dismiss the appeal, thereby affirming the order passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
5. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with this application.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having
gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my
consideration is whether the Court below has committed any error in passing
the impugned orders. The only reason assigned by the Courts below for not
awarding any amount of maintenance to the wife is that she being a Notary
Public had a good income and if she is earning, then the husband should not be
fastened with the liability of maintaining his wife. In my view, both the Courts
below have committed a serious error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.
The wife may be earning in thousands, but that would not absolve the husband
from his legal liability to maintain his wife.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena,
reported in 2014 Criminal Law Journal 3979 observed as under:
"3. Be it ingeminated that Section 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.
8. At the outset, we are obliged to reiterate the principle of law how a
proceeding under Section 125 of the Code has to be dealt with by the
court, and what is the duty of a Family Court after establishment of such
courts by the Family Courts Act, 1984. In Smt. Dukhtar Jahan v.
Mohammed Farooq1, the Court opined that proceedings under Section
125 of the Code, it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are
intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are
legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.
9. A threeJudge Bench in Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)2, while
discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined
that Section 125 of the Code is meant to achieve a social purpose. The
object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy
for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
10. A twoJudge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and
another3, while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of
the Code, ruled that:
“While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in
Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and
primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm
parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those
who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a
moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy
remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress.
The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose.
The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in
Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in
a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”
11. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai4, reiterating the legal position the Court
held:
“Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal5 falls within constitutional sweep of
Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is
meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing
and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and
natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when
they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was
highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat.”
12. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma7, it has been stated
that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and
speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain
herself and her children.
13. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating
the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in a speedy and
expeditious manner. A threeJudge Bench in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. .A.
Shahida, while highlighting on the purpose of bringing in the Family
Courts Act by the legislature, opined thus:
“The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of
Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy
settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for
matters connected therewith.”
14. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at hand the
proceeding before the Family Court was conducted without being alive to
the objects and reasons of the Act and the spirit of the provisions under
7 2013 (3) SCALE 561 8 (2003) 4 SCC 166
Section 125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the case continued for nine
years before the Family Court. It has come to the notice of the Court that
on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments
in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or,
on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a
situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family
Judge 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. When we say this, we do not mean that the
Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but there is a
distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and conscious
about dealing with a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember
that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not
only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds
unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of
the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the Family
Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of
the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to
be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional
fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the
Family Court Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as
expeditiously as possible keeping in view the objects and reasons of the Act
and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance,
divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc.
15. While dealing with the relevant date of grant of maintenance, in Shail
Kumari Devi and another v. Krishan Bhagwal Pathak alias Kishun B.
Pathak9, the Court referred to the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001) and came to hold that even
after the amendment of 2001, an order for payment of maintenance can
be paid by a court either from the date of order or when express order is
made to pay maintenance from the date of application, then the amount
of maintenance may be paid from that date, i.e., from the date of
application. The Court referred to the decision in Krishna Jain v. Dharam
Raj Jain wherein it has been stated that to hold that, normally
maintenance should be made payable from the date of the order and not
from the date of the application unless such order is backed by reasons
would amount to inserting something more in the subsection which the
legislature never intended. The High Court had observed that it was
unable to read in subsection (2) laying down any rule to award
maintenance from the date of the order or that the grant from the date of
the application is an exception. The High Court had also opined that
whether maintenance is granted from the date of the order or from the
date of application, the Court is required to record reasons as required
under subsection (6) of Section 354 of the Code. After referring to the
decision in Krishna Jain (supra), the Court adverted to the decision of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba11
wherein it has been ruled that the maintenance would be awarded from
the date of the order and such maintenance could be granted from the date
of the application only by recording special reasons. The view of the
learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that it is
a normal rule that the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the
date of the order and not from the date of the application for maintenance
was not accepted by this Court. Eventually, the Court ruled thus:
“43. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under
Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons
for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or
parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the
order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for
maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from
the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special
reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the court. In our
judgment, no such requirement can be read in subsection (1) of
Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that
effect.”
16. In the present case, as we find, there was enormous delay in disposal
of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code and most of the time the
husband had taken adjournments and some times the court dealt with the
matter showing total laxity. The wife sustained herself as far as she could
in that state for a period of nine years. The circumstances, in our
considered opinion, required grant of maintenance from the date of
application and by so granting the High Court has not committed any
legal infirmity. Hence, we concur with the order of the High Court.
However, we direct, as prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent,
that he may be allowed to pay the arrears along with the maintenance
awarded at present in a phased manner. Learned counsel for the appellant
did not object to such an arrangement being made. In view of the
aforesaid, we direct that while paying the maintenance as fixed by the
learned Family Court Judge per month by 5th of each succeeding month,
the arrears shall be paid in a proportionate manner within a period of
three years from today."
7. In the case of Minakshi Gaur Vs. Chitranjan Gaur, reported in AIR 2009
SC 1377, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"According to the case of the appellant, her husband, who is Respondent
No.1 herein, is a graduate in Engineering and his income is Rupees twenty
thousand. In the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the fact that the
income of the husband is Rupees twenty thousand per month has not been
denied. However, it has been asserted that wife's returned income is
Rs.98,820/ per annum, which shows that she was earning even less than
Rupees nine thousand per month. Both the wife and husband are residing
at Agra. In our view, it is not possible for the wife to maintain herself in
the town of Agra with the income of less than Rupees nine thousand per
month. The husband, who is earning at least Rupees Twenty thousand per
month, as stated by the appellant in this appeal and not controverted, is
liable to pay some amount of maintenance to the wife so that she may be
able to maintain herself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the view that it would be just and expedient to direct the husband to
pay Rupees five thousand per month to the wife by way of maintenance
from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C."
8. In the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, reported in 2008 Criminal Law
Journal 727, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"5. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person
for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can
provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who
have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in
the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife
while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the
efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125
Cr. P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect
women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807)
falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39
of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’). It is meant
to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing
and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and
natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when
they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was
highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
(2005 (2) Supreme 503).
6. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to
show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case
there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means.
7. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that
the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in
addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or
refused to maintain his wife. It is has to be established that the wife was
unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show
that the respondentwife was earning some income. That is not sufficient
to rule out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that
with the amount she earned the respondentwife was able to maintain
herself.
8. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not
amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the
wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn.
Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be
decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal
income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself
in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v.
Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a
position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor
penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression
"unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be
absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C."
9. In a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 314, it has
been observed in para 15 as under:
"15. ........ In today’s world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a
woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/
per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental
principle behind Section 125 Cr. PC is for amelioration of the financial
state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers
when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute
commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can
sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the
children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and
can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to
leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen
from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per
law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have
lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata
of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of
the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled
to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has
to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in
her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a
beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125
CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or
refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the
husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a
job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in
fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able
bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal
obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance
under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right."
10. Thus, the decisions referred to above of the Supreme Court lays down the
proposition of law that even if the wife is earning, that by itself will not absolve the
husband from his liability to pay the requisite maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
11. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby
ordered to be quashed. The matter is remitted to the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) for a fresh decision in accordance with law,
keeping in mind what has been observed above. It shall be open for both the parties
to put forward all contentions available in law, except the contention that the wife is
earning. The fresh decision shall be taken at the earliest and without fail within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Direct service
permitted.
In view of the order passed in the main matter, the connected Misc.
Application stands disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment