Supreme Court Surprised At State Opposing Maintenance Plea Of Wife By Siding With Husband

“The approach of the State of taking the side of the husband in a maintenance case, to say the least, is very strange. In fact, the learned counsel, who appeared for the State was under a duty and obligation to act as an officer of the Court and to assist the Court in arriving at a correct conclusion”, said the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Background of the case can be briefly summarized thus: on an application by the appellants (mother and daughter) filed under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court had awarded maintenance @ Rs.12,000 per month. Against the same, the appellants as well as respondent No.2-husband moved revision applications. By way of one of the impugned orders, the High Court reduced maintenance by a sum of Rs.2,000 per month. Vide the second order, it dismissed the appellants' revision application against the first order.

In proceedings before it, the Supreme Court Bench noted that the High Court passed a “cryptic order” without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

“Obviously, the High Court could not have passed such order ex-parte, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants”, the court said.

It was further observed that even notice was not issued to the husband and based only on vehement opposition of State of UP's counsel, the appellants' revision application was dismissed. Yet, the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, UP filed counter-affidavits in the matter, justifying legality of the impugned order(s).

Considering, the top Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restored the matter to the file of the High Court. Before parting, it clarified that UP government shall not blame or penalise the Advocates who represented it before the Court.

As a consequence, the Family Court order which granted maintenance to the appellants stands restored. It would be open to the wife and minor daughter to seek appropriate directions from the High Court regarding deposit of arrears and payment of current maintenance in terms of the Family Court order.

Counsels for appellants: AOR Rohit Amit Sthalekar; Advocates Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra, Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Gopeshwar Sigh Chandel, Abdul Bari Khan

Counsels for respondents: Sr. Adv., AAG UP Garima Prasad; AOR Kausar Raza Faridi and Sudeep Kumar; Advocates Ramesh Thakur, Sarfaraz Khan, Shahbaaz Jameel, Ali Muzaffar, Sarika Verma, Amit Pandey and Nbvs Reddy

Case Title: Asiya Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No(S). 824 of 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 140