A bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi Said that the provision of maintenance under section 125 of CrPC is a measure of social justice which was specifically enacted for the protection of women and children and refused to accept the petition of a husband, who submitted That he has no source of income as his party’s business is now closed.
“The respondent (husband) being a competent body, he is bound by lawful means to earn and maintain his wife and minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and other on record Taking into account the evidence, the court has no hesitation to hold that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was capable, had failed and neglected to sustain the appellant,” it said.
The Supreme Court directed a man to pay maintenance allowance of Rs 10,000 per month to his wife and Rs 6,000 to his minor son.
The bench observed that section 125 of CrPC was conceived to remove the pain, anguish and financial anguish of a woman, who is required to leave the matrimonial home, to make some suitable arrangement to maintain her and the children. Can go It pulled up a family court for denying maintenance to the woman and her children when she left the matrimonial home and started living separately and held that the court was not alive for objects and reasons, and under section 125 The spirit of the provisions was there under. code.
“The Family Court had violated the basic principle of law that it is the sacred duty of the husband to provide financial assistance to the wife and minor children. The husband is also required to earn money by manual labor, if he is a competent body, and cannot escape his liability, except on the legally permissible grounds described in the statute. In quadrilateral Vs Sita In this case, it is held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a man for his past neglect, but to prevent the loathing and destruction of an abandoned wife, by providing her with food, clothing and shelter by a prompt remedy. To do. The bench said.
The bench also dismissed Punjab And the Haryana High Court upholding “such a wrong and perverted order of the Family Court” passed the order in a very casual manner. The court passed the order in favor of the wife who had approached Supreme Court And after leaving her in-laws in 2010, she was fighting a legal battle for maintenance for almost a decade.