S.125 CrPC | Object Of Maintenance Is To Compel Man To Perform Moral Obligation Which He Owes To Society Regarding Wife & Children: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for maintenance, is intended to fulfil a social purpose and that its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by a husband against a...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for maintenance, is intended to fulfil a social purpose and that its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by a husband against a Family Court order whereby an application under sec. 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent wife, was partly allowed.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were husband and wife. After their marriage, matrimonial disputes crept up and they started living separately.
The respondent wife then filed an application under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, seeking maintenance from the petitioner husband.
The wife had pleaded in her application that the petitioner was a property dealer and was earning about a sum of Rs.1 Lakh per month. She had also stated that she was not able to bear her expenses and it was the petitioner husband who was responsible to maintain her, therefore, she prayed for a sum of Rs.25,000 per month as maintenance. She also prayed for interim maintenance while filing an application under sec. 125(3) of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner husband, on the other hand, opposed the application and argued that the respondent wife was a qualified individual, who at the time of marriage, was working in a company. It was also pleaded he was unable to work due to his illness and was completely dependent on his family for his sustenance.
The Family Court vide impugned order had found that both the parties had not disclosed their true and correct income and employment. While deciding application for grant of interim maintenance, the court, however, directed the petitioner husband to make a payment of Rs.10,000 per month apart from litigation expenses of Rs.11,000. The maintenance was awarded from the date of filing of the petition.
The High Court was of the view that the status of the parties and their capacity is required to be considered so as to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to whether wife and children require maintenance and, if yes, to what extent.
"The provisions of Section 125 are intended to fulfil a social purpose and its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children," the Court said.
It thus opined that in the instant matter, the order of maintenance of Rs.10,000 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal when there was no material to indicate that the respondent wife had any source of income.
"On the contrary, the petitioner himself stated in his affidavit that he is under self-employment," the court noted.
It added "However, at the interim stage, if the family court passes an order granting maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month considering the totality of circumstances, the same does not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679