Whether sanyasi is bound to provide maintenance to his wife?

The reference to the case between Bhuwan
Mohan Singh vs. Meeta reported in AIR 2014 SC
2875 and in the case between Shamima Farooqui Vs.
Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 is
material at this stage, which confirms that
irrespective of ability of a wife to earn
something, it is the duty of the husband to
maintain his wife. Maintenance cannot be defeated
on pleas that husband does not have means to pay,
for he does not have a job or his business is not
doing well. If husband is healthy, able bodied
and is in a position to support himself, he is
under legal obligation to support his wife. The
duty to provide maintenance has to be fulfilled
even by earning money by physical labour.
6. Therefore, relying upon the above two
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
it becomes clear that the law is well settled,
whereby the husband has to do some earning
activity for maintaining his wife and children
and he cannot escape from such liability only on
the basis of his pleading or submission that he

is residing in an Ashram and not earning
anything.
7. Learned advocate for the applicant is also
relying upon one letter issued by Head – Vishwa
Jagruti Mission, New Delhi. By such letter, it
has been placed on record that applicant has
devoted his life for religious and social work
and he is residing with such Ananddham Ashram and
thereby, he is not earning anything. If applicant
is so keen to do social work and to help the
people at large, he should also do some earning
activity so as to maintain his own wife.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 696 of 2016

SUNIL BHAGATRAJ UDASI...
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1..

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
 Date : 08/09/2016



1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Saket A.Waghela for
the applicant and learned APP Mr.K.P. Raval for
the respondent No.1 – State being a formal party.
2. Applicant has challenged the judgment and
order dated 3.6.2016 by the Family Court No.3,
Vadodara in Criminal Misc.Application No.704 of
2011 as well as order dated 21.7.2004 in Criminal
Case No.274 of 2002 by the J.M.F.C. (Traffic
Court), Vadodara. The applicant - husband has
filed Criminal Misc.Application No.704 of 2011
u/s.127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for
modification of the order of maintenance passed
in favour of respondent No.2 on 21.7.2004 in
Criminal Misc.Application No.274 of 2002 by the
J.M.F.C. (Traffic Court), Vadodara, whereby, the
applicant – husband was directed to pay

Rs.3,500/- towards maintenance for respondent
No.2 – wife and it was also prayed to either
reject the order of maintenance already granted
in favour of wife or atleast reduce the same.
Same relief is prayed in this revision
application also. The substance of application
before the Family Court, Vadodara and before this
Court is to the effect that though applicant was
serving with State Bank of Hyderabad at relevant
time and though he was earning more than
Rs.11,000/-, he has resigned from such service
and it is his case that, now, he is residing in
Ananddham Ashram, based in New Delhi and
therefore, he is not earning anything. It is also
submitted by learned advocate for the applicant
that when Family Court has accepted such
contention, the Family Court should have modified
the order of maintenance by rejecting the order
dated order dated 21.7.2004 in Criminal
Misc.Application No.274 of 2002 by the J.M.F.C.
(Traffic Court), Vadodara.
3. The fact remains that applicant is a healthy
person. When he has selected not to earn anything
by resigning from State Bank of Hyderabad and if
he is residing in Ananddham Ashram, New Delhi on
his own, it is his moral, social and legal
liability to maintain his wife by doing some
earning activity so as to comply with the order
of maintenance, which was passed in favour of the

respondent No. 2 – wife since the year 2002.
4. I have perused the impugned order. I do not
find any illegality or irregularity in the
impugned orders, which is describing the facts
and circumstances in detail.
5. The reference to the case between Bhuwan
Mohan Singh vs. Meeta reported in AIR 2014 SC
2875 and in the case between Shamima Farooqui Vs.
Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 is
material at this stage, which confirms that
irrespective of ability of a wife to earn
something, it is the duty of the husband to
maintain his wife. Maintenance cannot be defeated
on pleas that husband does not have means to pay,
for he does not have a job or his business is not
doing well. If husband is healthy, able bodied
and is in a position to support himself, he is
under legal obligation to support his wife. The
duty to provide maintenance has to be fulfilled
even by earning money by physical labour.
6. Therefore, relying upon the above two
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
it becomes clear that the law is well settled,
whereby the husband has to do some earning
activity for maintaining his wife and children
and he cannot escape from such liability only on
the basis of his pleading or submission that he

is residing in an Ashram and not earning
anything.
7. Learned advocate for the applicant is also
relying upon one letter issued by Head – Vishwa
Jagruti Mission, New Delhi. By such letter, it
has been placed on record that applicant has
devoted his life for religious and social work
and he is residing with such Ananddham Ashram and
thereby, he is not earning anything. If applicant
is so keen to do social work and to help the
people at large, he should also do some earning
activity so as to maintain his own wife.
8. In view of above facts and circumstances,
there is no substance in the application and the
same is summarily dismissed.
(S.G.SHAH, J.)

Print Page