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.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.