Husband Not Discharged From Personal Liability To Maintain Wife & Children On Ground That He Has No Means To Pay: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has observed that it is a very common plea of husbands embroiled in matrimonial litigation that they are not in a financial position to maintain their wife and children. It observed that such a plea, in absence of cogent grounds, cannot discharge the husband from his "personal liability" of maintaining the wife and children.Justice Malasri Nandi remarked,"In every...
The Gauhati High Court has observed that it is a very common plea of husbands embroiled in matrimonial litigation that they are not in a financial position to maintain their wife and children. It observed that such a plea, in absence of cogent grounds, cannot discharge the husband from his "personal liability" of maintaining the wife and children.
Justice Malasri Nandi remarked,
"In every petition, generally, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, or he does not have a job or his business is not doing well...Regarding such pleas, the judicial response has been always very clear that it is the personal liability of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter. The husband is not discharged from his this liability on such grounds."
The Court thus upheld a family court order directing the Petitioner-husband to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife amounting to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.2,000/- per month to her daughter, under section 125 of CrPC.
The parties were married according to the Muslim Shariat law and a daughter was born out of their wedlock. The wife alleged that in the year 2019, her husband and his family members demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and on account of fulfilment, she was driven out from her matrimonial home along with her daughter. Finding no alternative, she took shelter in the house of her parents along with her daughter.
The wife approached the family court which directed the husband to pay maintenance. Hence, the husband file the revision petition.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that he, being a day labourer, has no ability to provide maintenance separately to his wife and daughter. The counsel for the respondent/wife objected to the prayer of the petitioner by stating that considering the high price of the essential commodities, Rs.5,000/- is not enough to maintain herself and her daughter.
Court’s Decision
Justice Malasri Nandi observed that it is the personal liability of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter. The husband is not discharged from his this liability on grounds such as he does not have the means to pay, or he does not have a job or his business is not doing well.
The court held:
“Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted to achieve a social object and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and to provide speedy remedy to deserted or divorced wife, minor children and infirm parents in term of food, clothing and shelter and minimum needs of one’s life. The Supreme Court has been always of the view that maintenance to the wife is an issue of gender justice and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.”
The court further ruled:
“In the present case, the admitted fact on behalf of the husband is that he is a able bodied person and according to the respondent/wife, her husband has sufficient landed property from which he earns Rs.30,000/- per month and the fact was not denied by the petitioner either in his written statement or his evidence before the learned trial court. As a result of which, the learned trial court has awarded maintenance in favour of the petitioner and her daughter amounting to Rs.5,000/- per month which is not excessive.”
In conclusion the court dismissed the petition by directing the husband to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent/wife and their daughter.
Case Title: Rahim Ali Prodhani v. The State of Assam and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 6