Citation - Judgment

Satish (Querist) 17 May 2009 This query is : Resolved
Do anyone pls provide me the citation and if possible the Full Judgment passed by SCI in Chaturbhuj case.
Thanks in advance.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

A V Vishal (Expert) 17 May 2009
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. S.125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. [Para 5] [586-B, C, D, E]

Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors., AIR (1978) SC 1807 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 503, relied on.

1.2. Under the law, the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of s.125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under s.125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to at the place of her husband.
[Paras 6, 7 and 8] [583-F, G; 584-A, B, C]

Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi, AIR (1975) SC 83, relied on and re-iterated.

2. The trial Court, the Revisional Court and the High Court analysed the evidence and held that the respondent wife was unable to maintain herself. The conclusions are essentially factual and they are not perverse. That being so there is no scope for interference in this appeal. [Para 9] [584-D, E]

Shashindra Tirpathi, Sharad Tripathi and Debasis Misra for the Appellant.

Shashi Bhushan Kumar for the Respondent.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s.125-Claim for maintenance by wife-Wife not having sufficient means to maintain herself and husband having sufficient means-Order of maintenance by Courts below after analyzing evidence-Interference with-Held: Conclusion of courts below that wife was unable to maintain herself was essentially factual and not perverse-Thus, interference not called for-Constitution of India-Article 136.

s.125-Maintenance proceedings-Object of-Held: s.125 is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves, and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 12(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 15(3) and 39-Social justice.

Words and phrases: "unable to maintain herself"-Meaning of-In the context of s.125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The respondent-wife filed an application under s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming Rs.10,000/- as maintenance from the appellant-husband. In the application, it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself.

The stand of the appellant was that the wife was living in the house cons