Jogender Singh v. Manvi And Another
!"#$!%&'&"()
*
*
, *** -., - ***, , ) / 0*,,
, *0 1.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Palwal under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide which maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- per month each to both the respondents-minor children) was awarded in favour of respondents. 2.
The marriage between the petitioner and mother of respondents was solemnized on 01.03.2010. Two children (respondents herein) were born from the wedlock. Wife of the petitioner died in Central Hospital on 02.01.2016 due to consumption of some poisonous substance. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2022 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under the Guardianship and Wards Act and handed over the custody of minor children-respondents to maternal grand-parents. Respondents through their maternal grand-parents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family
Court vide impugned order dated 13.05.2022 granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- per month each to both the respondentsminor children) in favour of respondents. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that learned Family Court below Nabha has gravely erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance in favour of the respondents as the trial Court without adopting proper procedure to secure the presence of petitioner, proceeded him against ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.2019 and later on passed the impugned order dated 13.05.2022. It is further contended that petitioner is residing in Delhi for earning his livelihood and he came know about the impugned order only when the police came to village on 11.12.2022 and disclosed about the order as well as warrant of arrest. Therefore, prayer was made for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 13.05.2022. 4.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that learned Family Court below has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance in favour of respondents as petitioner is duty bound morally as well as socially to maintain his minor children. Learned counsel further submitted that respondents being minors, have no source of income and are dependent upon the mercy of their maternal grandparents. 5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file with their able assistance.
6.
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 fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
7.
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."
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."
8.
Another objective the legislature has sought to achieve by this provision is to provide maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that the she/he can maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse. 9.
There is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.
10.
While dealing with the issue of maintenance in extenso, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, laid down the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance and issued the following directions: "VI Final Directions 130.
In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B -1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India: (a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
131.
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding:
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding (b) Payment of Interim Maintenance 132.
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country. (c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance 133.
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B III of the judgment.
134. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case. (d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded 135.
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B-IV above. (e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance 136.
For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI." 11.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned Family Court, Palwal has
rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance allowance in favour of respondents-minor children after assessing the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 40,000/- per month. A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being bereft of any merit. ,
*
*
!" #"$
% #"$