Shamsher Singh v. Sunita Rani




 

 

!"#

$ %$ & !"!'"( !"# )$ %$ & *+,- +

*."/+ $$$ 0.0.!"

$ *'".0,,".

$$$

2!"

"0
3# 453$*
*  

  



   

 * 6$

  



  !

!

" "!



$

# % &  ' (

  )

  

"* % % 
+,!

-  .% /0 '

 


5
7 "



'

'

 1
*
+*

'  '

   '3



'

4

 '3

   5

 %  6 (( '  

( 7 

8'

   

' 

9'   

 



#

"  

 

' 

"

" :



 ;

,  <9 

= "
!

!
!

"
=





3 

7   

>  

  ?

@

'  "+ , "
2

  ;

 <9 



 

!

  

@) 
* !

"
,

 $

# % &  

 ;

! : <9 ' '

 

' '

8' 

 @)  !

+ " "

 $

# 

;

:"  <9

 

 #  

2 = "
,

%># 

(  

 # 





 



 





'



(#

 

&



  

 

 

8' (

  '

 

$

#





 9

  

 * =

A   

 

'

    ( 

 
"*

! '



&

 

 

 # 3 ( $

# % &

8'



  ; 3 '

   '   

 

#   

 '  

, 5

 %  6 (( '  

'

 3  ( $

# &

 '

 "+ , "
2 ' '



 

8'  "+ , "
2



 

 

 )

# '

  &



     ' ' 

 

 '


= "

" "

'

39 .A9; & /

:

A  

   





 

 '





 '

  

 

$ 


":-!0   '

   #

#





 



   

 '  # 

' 





7   @)  '

 !

+ " "

 

  

2 = "
,
2 * " "

 

'

  

= (  

 !

!

" "!





 

  ="

'3

;  



   (



C

8




 

 

 

A # '

(

   ) 

' 



8'

 '    

 





       (



8/ &

   

 !  

  9' 

 

   )  '  

$       (





8 "

#  




   $%&  



 



",



#   ' 

 '



  ' 



 ( '  

*1 *5* * ,



    

 

 '

     

@)  

;

:"  <9

 

   

2 = "
,
2 * " "

:

 # 

;

  <9
=
"

" ""

8/ &

  

  '  '    

  '      



 

 '  # 





 # 





 ' 

 



#

 









' 3

 

) 



   

*

 ' 6

 8/ &  '

 

            ( ( 

    &  3

 6

 

 '

 



 
   
 

   
 

       

 

 
   

    
   
 
 


!


  

 "
   !   

 
 

 
  


    


  
 

     "

! 

 

 

  
    


  
       
  #
 


          
 

    
  

 


   
      
    


  $  


  
  
   



      
   

 
 

      
 
%   
 

     
    
    
    

  
    


2


 
  &
       
        
 

    


 

  
   

 
   

  
 
 
 

 

 
 


    
   
 



!  
   ! 



  


   

 

 
'  $ 


  

 




  
   
 

 
 


(!

     
  

   


!


   " 
  
      
" ) *'   +,

   + *) +

,  *) + & 




)*-  

0 +

( 

>

 



'







 

 

  '

'

> ) 

  





 

 

  # ' 



 / 9 

 

 

 &



>  ( 

 
",



@)

  #

 '



    (

 %9



 8 "

#  





   '  3

 6 

?

  

'

+!  
 



,   
  

 "
  
 
 


  

, 
  
    

         

-     
    

       
 
 
   



 
   
  
 
     
+./ $ $    
+.0 +.1$ $   


     
   



   

,  
 
    
  
 


    
 


 

 
  * -  

0

The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

* 11.

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justice Fatima Beevi, opined that as follows:

"3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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."

12.

A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479, speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, opined as follows:

"15. ... 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." CONCLUSION 13.

In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-husband cannot be absolved from paying the arrears of maintenance due towards the respondent-wife, even if, at times, their daughter is taking care of the respondent. While any dutiful child would take care of a parent in need, it is the legal and moral duty of the petitioner as a husband to maintain his wife. The learned Family Court, Sonipat has

+ correctly assessed the facts to grant her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance vide order dated 29.07.2016, and it would be in the interest of justice to execute the same.

14.

After assessing all the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to indicate any perversity in the impugned order dated 03.03.2023, that would merit interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 15.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

 * 

)$ %$ &    2 
D  3 <   E< D 



E<