Husband challenged a Family Court order granting Rs. 6,000 monthly maintenance to his wife and Rs. 4,000 to their minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the amount reasonable against his admitted Rs. 41,000 salary and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
������������������������
�
��� ��������������������������������������������� �������������
��������������������������� ��� �!"�� #$%$!&'��()�*)����
+�������,����
�� )))����������
-.+
+����������������
�)))��+�������+
�����'�����/�0����)���+��������������+���������
�������� ������������������������������ ������������������������������� �������������������
����������� �����������������������������������
1111
���������+������������)�����0�
AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.08.01 15:21 same, petitioner-husband has preferred this revision petition. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
������������������������
� 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband inter alia contends that amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by learned Family Court, Jhajjar as maintenance allowance, is on the higher side as petitioner is not in a position to pay the same due to the reason that he had purchased the property in the name of respondent No. 1-wife and secured loan for that purpose and further for the purpose of building the house on the same and respondent No. 1 is residing in that very house. After reduction, he is earning a sum of Rs. 41,000/- per month.
AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.08.01 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
������������������������
2
within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
“3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.”
A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D.
Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479 , speaking through Justice Faizan Uddin, opined as follows:
“15. ... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”
provision is to provide maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse during proceedings emerging out of matrimonial disputes so that the she/he can maintain herself/himself, have sufficient funds to pursue the litigation, and not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.
AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.08.01 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
������������������������
�
claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus. The quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.
" VI Final Directions
130. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B -1 to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
131. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding:
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding
AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.08.01 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
������������������������
�
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
132. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
( c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
133. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B III of the judgment.
134. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
135. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B-IV above.
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance
136. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C may be applicable. The arder of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."
record, this Court is of the opinion that learned Family Court, Jhajjar has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance in favour of respondentswife and minor daughter as the petitioner has himself admitted his carry home salary as Rs. 41,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- maintenance to two persons (wife and minor daughter) cannot be said to be excessive, by stretch of imagination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being bereft of any merit.
��������������+����������
�����
�()�*)���� ������������
!�" #�����������$��%&�������� '��&(� !��" #��������������)�� '��&(��
AJAY GOSWAMI 2024.08.01 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month awarded to the wife and minor daughter was excessive given the husband's admitted take-home salary.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)Relied on¶8
(1991) 2 SCC 375 · Who else cites this
Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of GujaratRelied on¶8
(1996) 4 SCC 479 · Who else cites this
Rajnesh v. Neha and anotherApplied¶11
(2021) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner-husband
Respondent No. 1-wife
Respondent No. 2-minor daughter
Ajay Goswami
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
