//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec.125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance Case – liability of husband – Husband bound to pay maintenance by doing labour also- in case of delay in court proceedings , the wife is entitled for maintenance from the date of petition – Apex court held that 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 and further held that 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. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1565 of 2013) Bhuwan Mohan Singh … Appellant Versus Meena & Ors. …Respondent = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41767

Sec.125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance Case – liability of husband – Husband bound to pay maintenance by doing labour also- in case of delay  in court proceedings , the wife is entitled for maintenance from the date of petition –  Apex court held that 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 and further held that 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. =

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. =

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.

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41767

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,728,416 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com