Financial Liabilities Do Not Justify Lowering Maintenance Payments U/S 125 CrPC: Uttarakhand High Court
Addressing a revision petition against an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Judge, Haldwani, the Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that existing loans and other financial liabilities do not justify lowering maintenance payments under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.The case arose from an application filed by the revisionist's wife seeking maintenance for...
Addressing a revision petition against an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Judge, Haldwani, the Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that existing loans and other financial liabilities do not justify lowering maintenance payments under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case arose from an application filed by the revisionist's wife seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter. She alleged that after their marriage, she was subjected to harassment and torture over dowry demands, ultimately leading to her separation from the revisionist.
Justice Ravindra Maithani, presiding over the case, upheld the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that "taking loan may not be a ground, per se, to reduce the amount of maintenance."
The ruling reinforced the principle that financial obligations stemming from loans do not inherently diminish an individual's duty to provide adequate maintenance to dependents.
The Family Judge of Haldwani, District Nainital had increased the interim maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7,500 per month—Rs. 4,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,500 for the daughter. The increase was made to provide adequate support to the revisionist's estranged wife and daughter, considering the revisionist's salary of Rs. 28,241 after deductions.
In defense, the revisionist argued that the wife had separated without just cause and was self-sufficient, holding a graduate degree and earning through tuition. Furthermore, he contended that he was already paying Rs. 5,000 monthly under an order from proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and claimed his salary of Rs. 28,000 was further strained by the need to support his elderly mother and service a loan with monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000.
However, the court determined that the existing amount was insufficient for the respondents' maintenance needs and considered the revisionist's financial capacity to afford the increased amount.
Justice Maithani acknowledged the revisionist's financial commitments but found that the Family Court had already accounted for these in its determination of the maintenance amount. He noted that "after deduction, the salary of the revisionist is Rs. 28,241/-," thereby confirming the financial capacity to meet the maintenance obligations.
The court also pointed out the limited scope of revision jurisdiction, focusing on the "correctness, legality, and propriety" of the original order rather than reevaluating the entire case.
The High Court concluded that the interim maintenance amount was not excessive and found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's judgment and accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Mahesh Nath Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utr) 21
Click Here To Read/Download Judgement