Natural Justice Can't Be Tinkered Casually: P&H HC Sets Aside Order Curtailing Husband's Right To Defence For Not Paying Interim Maintenance

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the order of the Family Court restraining a husband to cross-examine his wife and to adduce evidence in maintenance proceedings, observing that such an approach cannot be taken casually and lightly, without there being willful and contumacious neglect on part of the person with respect to compliance of the order.

The Family Court passed the restraining order on the grounds that the husband failed to pay the interim amount directed to be paid by the Court to his minor daughters. Although the husband did not pay the entire amount of the interim maintenance directed, a sum of Rs.1.2 lakh was paid by him within the span of one month.

Justice Sumeet Goel elucidated that, "The Family court before curtailing the right of the husband to lead the evidence and to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (Pws), has failed to record any findings in any of its orders that the lapse on the part of the husband to pay entire arrears of interim maintenance was willful and deliberate."

The Court noted that the the husband paid an amount of Rs.1.20 lakh within a short span of less than one month towards the arrears of maintenance and in these circumstances, the Family Court ought to have afforded a reasonable opportunity to the husband to clear the entire arrears of interim maintenance.

It further considered that the amount got accumulated, due to one of the reasons being the "fixation of interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, at the stage when the proceedings in the matter have advanced substantially."

These observations were made while hearing the revision plea of a man, challenging the order of a family court. The man was married in 2006 and out of the wedlock twin daughters were born.

In view of the differences having arisen between the husband and wife, both started living separately and both the daughters of the couple have been residing with the wife.

The wife along with both the minor daughters, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Ludhiana seeking maintenance for their sustenance. 

The maintenance petition was finally decided by the Family Court in 2023, thereby granting maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month to the wife; and Rs.30,000 per month each to both the daughters.

The husband by way of a revision petition had challenged the impugned order of the family court. Whereas, the wife (along with the twin daughters) had preferred the revision seeking modification of the impugned order for enhancement of the maintenance amount so awarded.

Counsel appearing for the husband argued that the trial Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., had improperly, wrongly and illegally curtailed his right to present his defence and his right to cross-examine the wife, who appeared as a witness.

It was submitted that curtailment of the right of the husband to lead his defence significantly impaired his valuable right and as such the entire proceedings conducted by the Family Court are vitiated by procedural illegality.

The curtailment placed on the husband's defence has resulted in the grant of relief to the wife and both daughters on the basis of inaccurate & misleading financial details submitted before the Court, thereby causing a windfall in the amount of maintenance granted, he added.

After hearing the submissions and examining the order of the Family Court, the Court said that "the Family Court overlooked a fundamental principle of jurisprudence; the right to plead a defence against any accusation or claim laid against a person, being his cherished legal right to a legal remedy as well as a principle of natural justice, ought not to be tinkered with casually and lightly, without there being willful and contumacious neglect on part of that person qua compliance of the order(s) passed by the Court."

Justice Goel highlighted that the orders passed by the Family Court curtailing the right of the husband even to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, making the testimonies of prosecution witnesses  "go totally unrebutted", without being tested on the touchstone of cross-examination, is not sustainable in law.

The Court also relied on a catena of judgements of different High Courts.

Consequently, the Court held that the order of the Family Court curtailing the right of the husband to cross-examine the PWs examined by the wife, to prove her entitlement to claim the maintenance from her husband, "is clearly not sustainable in law and facts of the case."

In light of the above, the matter was remitted back to the Family Court, Ludhiana for its adjudication afresh, by affording the husband reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (PWs), as well as, to lead his own evidence in the case.

However, the Court added that the opportunity of defence shall be afforded to the husband, subject to his clearing the entire arrears of interim maintenance as fixed by the Family Court and payment of interim maintenance to both the minor daughters till the time the matter is decided afresh. The judge also directed him to pay a cost of Rs.25,000 to his wife.

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR(F)-1648-2023 and for respondent in CRR(F)-343-2024.

Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Harita Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners in CRR(F)-343-2024 and for the respondent in CRR(F)-1648-2023.

 VXXXXX v. NXXXX 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 249