Section 125 CrPC Falls Within Constitutional Sweep Of Article 15 (3); It Intends To Protect Women, Children & Infirm Parents: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and especially to protect women and children and also old and infirm parents and that this provision falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), re-enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it stressed that this provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.

The bench observed thus as it dismissed a criminal revision plea moved by one Mukis challenging the order of November 2021 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay Rs. 3,000/- to his wife and Rs. 2000/- to her son as maintenance from the date of filing of the application seeking maintenance.

Before the HC, the revisionist's counsel argued that the order to pay total maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of application, could not be complied with by the revisionist on account of financial difficulties and therefore, he sought some time to deposit the said amount.

Lastly, it was argued that his wife was residing away from her matrimonial house on her free will along with her parents without any rhyme and reason and that the court below had wrongly assessed the income of the revisionist while passing the impugned order. 

Taking into account the facts and arguments made in the case, the Court noted that the wife is unable to maintain herself and that the revisionist had turned her wife on account of nonfulfillment of dowry demands.

The Court further observed that there is sufficient material on record to prove that the revisionist's wife does not have any independent earning, therefore, the Court concluded that it is incumbent upon the revisionist to provide financial succor to the respondent no. 2 (wife).

Now, regarding the quantum of amount, the Court opined that the family court had provided a very meager amount to the wife and in case, the wife had been living with the revisionist, he would have had to spend at least this much amount on her.

Therefore, the Court held that it cannot be said that an exorbitant amount had been allowed by the concerned court.

However, in order to provide relief to the revisionist, the Court directed him to deposit the entire amount due against him in three equal monthly installments within three months and shall also pay regular monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/-.

"In case the revisionist deposits the first installment by 15.4.2022 before the court below and further undertakes before the court below that he will pay the next installment by 10th of each succeeding months, no coercive measures shall be taken against him for a period of three months. It is further provided that in case of default in making payment of either the first installment or the successive installments the benefit of this order shall not be given to the revisionist and the court below will be at its liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law," the Court ordered as it dismissed the plea.

Case title - Mukis v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 117

Click Here To Read/Download Order