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. T. A. Shahida (2003) 4 SCC 166 :
(AIR 2003 SC 2525 :
2003 AIR SCW 2710)., 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 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. “
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 707 of 2015
LOVELEEN EDWIN SINGH.
V
TANULLATA BABUBHAI CHRISTIAN & 3..
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 10/06/2016
1. This Criminal Revision Application has been
filed by the applicant under section 394 read
with section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Code” for short) to quash and set aside an order
dated 22/5/2015 passed in Criminal Criminal
Misc. Application No.878 of 2009 by the learned
Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad, whereby the
application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3
under section 125 of the Code for maintenance
was allowed and the applicant was directed to
pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to wife
and Rs.1500/- each to two minor daughters till
31-12-2014 and thereafter at the rate of
Rs.5000/- per month to wife and Rs.3000/- each
to two minor daughters.
2. Short facts are that marriage of applicant with
respondent No.1 was solemnized on 29-1-2001 and
they had two children out of said wedlock.
Initially there were no disputes, however,
thereafter, gradually disputes started between
the parties and as a consequence thereof,
respondent No.2 started residing at her parental
home. As the disputes grew further, the
respondent No.2 filed an application under
section 125 of the Code for maintenance. Prior
thereto, the respondent No.2-wife filed an
application against the applicant under the
provisions of Domestic Violence Act in 2008. The
applicant had also filed an application for
divorce and custody of children before the
competent Court. During the pendency of those
proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between
the parties whereby the applicant started to
reside with the respondent No.2 at her parental
home. As the disputes again started between the
parties, the respondent No.2-wife filed a
complaint for the offence punishable under
section 498(A) of IPC. The respondent No.2
thereafter pursued the application for
maintenance filed by her. Said application was
allowed and the applicant was directed to pay
monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife
and Rs.1500/- each to two minor daughters till
31-12-2014 and thereafter at the rate of
Rs.5000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3000/-
each to two minor daughters. Hence, the present
revision application has been preferred by the
applicant.
3. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate for
the applicant, Mr. Iqbal M. Malik, learned
advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.
K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent
No.4.
4. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the
applicant submitted that the impugned order
passed by the learned Family Court is illegal,
arbitrary and against the settled principle of
law. He further submitted that as the applicant
is a physically challenged person with 50%
permanent partial disability earning only
Rs.12,000/- per annum by doing miscellaneous
work, it is very difficult for him to maintain
himself. He further submitted that the
contention of the respondent No.1-wife that the
applicant is earning by running computer classes
is absolutely false and frivolous. He further
submitted that father of the applicant aged
about 71 years is suffering from heart problem
with 99% blockage and he has been recommended
bypass surgery, however, due to weak financial
condition of the applicant, said operation could
not be performed. He has further submitted that
the respondent No.1-wife did not like the
applicant due to his disability and marriage
took place when his father was in police
service and upon compulsory retirement of his
father, she deserted him. He further submitted
that after the respondent No.1-wife has filed an
application for maintenance, a settlement was
arrived at whereby the applicant started to
reside at the residence of respondent No.1-wife
and at that time, the application for
maintenance filed by her was not prosecuted by
her for four years and when the dispute again
arose between the parties, she prosecuted the
said application and the impugned order awarding
maintenance came to be passed. He also submitted
that the respondent No.1-wife is running tuition
classes and is owning a house worth Rs.75.00
lakhs out of said income and there is nobody in
her family to look after except her mother, who
is receiving Rs.20,000/- as pension as she was
serving as a Nurse in the Government Hospital.
He further submitted that the respondent No.1-
wife has sufficient means to look after her and
two children and, therefore, he urged that the
impugned order requires to be set aside by
allowing the present revision application.
5. Mr. Iqbal M. Malik, learned advocate for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the present
revision application has been filed to avoid
payment of maintenance amount which is in
arrears to the tune of Rs.5,68,500/-. He further
submitted that the applicant is having two
godowns having twelve rooms and earning a rent
of Rs.3,000/- per room, a shop at Ghodasar
earning rent of Rs.5000/- per month, fixed
deposits to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with Bank
of India, owning a car in his own name and
running Eco Car on rent. He further submitted
that father of the applicant is getting a
pension of Rs.35,000/- per month and is having
property at Dahod and also possesses 35 tolas of
gold. He further submitted that the applicant
had sold a shop for Rs.11,00,000/- in the year
2006. He further submitted that applications
preferred by the applicant under section 25 of
the Guardian and Wards Act and section 10 of the
Divorce Act were dismissed for default by the
learned Family Court. He further submitted that
the applicant is having sufficient sources of
income to pay the amount of maintenance ordered
by the learned Family Court to the respondent
No.1-wife and two daughters and therefore, the
present revision application deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Learned APP, Mr.K.L.Pandya, supported the
impugned order passed by the learned Family
Court and adopted the submissions made by
learned advocate, Mr.Iqbal Malik.
7. It has been vehemently submitted by learned
advocate for the applicant-husband that in the
year 2010-2011, there was a settlement between
the applicant-husband and the respondent-wife
and the applicant-husband herein had started to
reside with the respondent-wife at her parental
home and in the year 2014, once again there were
disputes between them. He has then submitted
that due to settlement between the parties, the
applicant was under bona fide impression that
the respondent-wife must have withdrawn the
application for maintenance, however, it was not
withdrawn and remained pending which was pursued
by the respondent-wife and obtained ex-parte
order dated 22-5-2015. Referring to Exh.20-
Annexure-F, which is the certified copy dated
27-1-2011 of the examination-in-chief filed in
form of affidavit by the wife in Criminal Misc.
Application No.878 of 2009, it appears that the
same was served to the otherside on the same
date i.e. 27-1-2011. As per the submission of
the applicant-husband, in the year 2010-2011,
there was a settlement, which was lasted upto
2014. No specific date of settlement or the
specific date of the year 2014 appears to have
been mentioned more particularly when the
applicant has left the parental house of the
respondent-wife where he was residing after
settlement. There appears no substance in the
submission made by learned advocate for the
applicant that due to settlement between the
applicant-husband and the respondent-wife, the
applicant was under bona fide impression that
the respondent-wife must have withdrawn the
application for maintenance. If at all the
applicant-husband had resided at the parental
house of the respondent-wife after settlement
during 2010-2014, he should be either bold
enough to ask regarding the said maintenance
application or he should have won the heart of
the respondent-wife, who will disclose by her
own to the applicant regarding the said
maintenance application. As per the submission
of learned advocate for the applicant, once
again if disputes had arisen between the
parties, then duty is cast upon the applicanthusband
to make inquiry regarding the
maintenance application filed by the respondentwife
but the defense of bona fide impression
appears not to be genuine and accordingly, I do
not find any merit and substance in the above
referred submissions made by learned advocate
for the applicant.
8. Considering the rival submissions made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it
appears that the respondent No.1 and two minor
children were residing separately from the
applicant and the respondent No.1 was unable to
maintain herself and their children and
therefore, the applicant being the husband of
the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3, has a legal liability to maintain
them. It is to be noted that in the application
filed under section 125 of the Code for
maintenance, the applicant was directed to pay
monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to wife and
Rs.1500/- each to two minor daughters from the
date of application till 31-12-2014 and from 1-
1-2015 at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month to the
wife and Rs.3000/- each to two minor daughters.
In arriving at the maintenance amount, the
learned Family Court has considered the
undisputed averment of Rs.20,000/- per month
derived by the applicant from running computer
classes and computer center in the name of
Lovely Cyber Cafe. It has also considered the
evidence produced on record by the respondent
No.1-wife to show that the applicant owned a
flat in a posh locality in Thaltej and a
bungalow at Vatva apart from owning shops at
Vatva and Usmanpura. Thus, the learned Family
Court has considered the income of the applicant
between Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month at
the time of filing of the application and
between Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/- per month
during 2015. The learned Family Court has also
considered the fact that except the wife and
children, the applicant has nobody to maintain
as his father is a retired Police Official.
Considering the bleak financial condition of the
respondent No.1 to maintain herself and two
children and looking to the expenses that would
be incurred towards education of the children,
this Court is of the opinion that the amount of
maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court
is just and reasonable which does not require
any interference in this revision and therefore,
the present revision deserves to be dismissed.
9. It is required to be noted that in the present
case, although the application for maintenance
has been filed as back as in the year 2008, it
has been finally decided in 2015. When an
application under Section 125 of Code is filed,
it has to be decided by the Family Court at the
earliest and such long delay in disposal of the
maintenance application may defeat the very
purpose of establishing the family courts. In
this connection, it is worth noting the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and
Ors. reported in AIR 2014 S.C. Page 2875 more
particularly, paragraph Nos.8 to 14 as under:
“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.
1(1987) 1 SCC 624 : (AIR 1987 SC 1049).
9. A three Judge 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.
2(1991) 2 SCC 375 : (1991 AIR SCW 754).
10. A two Judge 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:
3(1996) 4 SCC 479.
"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 :
4(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (AIR 2008 SC 530 : 2007
AIR SCW 7416).
"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 Kaushal5falls 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 Gujarat6".
5(1978) 4 SCC 70 : (AIR 1978 SC 1807)
6(2005) 3 SCC 636 : (AIR 2005 SC 1809 :
2005 AIR SCW 1601).
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.
72013 (3) SCALE 561 : (AIR 2013 SC 1541 :
2013 AIR SCW 1822)
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. T. A. Shahida8, while
highlighting on the purpose of bringing in
the Family Courts Act by the legislature,
opined thus:
8(2003) 4 SCC 166 : (AIR 2003 SC 2525 :
2003 AIR SCW 2710).
"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 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. “
10. Thus, the present Criminal Revision Application
is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. The
applicant is directed to pay the arrears of
maintenance within a period of six weeks and
also regularly pay the monthly amount of
maintenance as ordered by the learned Family
Court. The applicant is also directed to deposit
an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this
revision to the respondent No.1-wife in the
trial court. Upon the said amount being
deposited, the respondent No.1-wife is at
liberty to withdraw the said amount.
(G.B.SHAH, J.)
RADHAN
No comments:
Post a Comment