LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

roshuv (Manager)     10 April 2015

Supreme court ruling crpc 125 08.04.15 : discussions.

Dear Experts / Learned Counsels,

Please see the judgement. (Copy of SC judgement "Shamima Farooqi vs Shahid Khan" downloaded from Supreme Court Website) 

Query

What does the SC ruling elaborates on CrPc 125 ? Is it Only for No Delay in deciding Maintenance "time frame".

How is it different from the previous ruling ?

Is the recent ruling says NO MATTER whatever the Wife does wrong she is ENTITLED for Maintenance?

What does " UNLESS DISQUALIFIED" mean?

In the Case Respodent has failed to prove her means to sustain herself…What had he proved her sustainibility lead to DENIAL of maintenance?

Previous Judgements by SC " Wife  NOT entitled for Maintenance if She Deserts husband" & "maintenance for 1 year only" is it superseded by this ruling..

"her means to sustain herself" … What does CrPC 125 says for Means to sustain? (For highly qualified women Intentionally not working?)

 

 JUDGEMNT:

 

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 1/13

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.564‐565 OF 2015

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6380‐6381 of 2014]

SHAMIMA FAROOQUI ... Appellant

Versus

SHAHID KHAN ... Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. When centuries old obstructions are removed, age old shackles

are either burnt or lost their force, the chains get rusted, and the

human endowments and virtues are not indifferently treated and

emphasis is laid on "free identity" and not on "annexed identity", and

the women of today can gracefully and boldly assert their legal rights

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

and refuse to be tied down to the obscurant conservatism, and

Chetan Kumar

Date: 2015.04.06

17:15:02 IST

Reason:

further determined to ostracize the "principle of commodity", and the

2

"barter system" to devoutly engage themselves in learning, criticizing

and professing certain principles with committed sensibility and

participating in all pertinent and concerned issues, there is no

warrant or justification or need to pave the innovative multi‐avenues

which the law does not countenance or give its stamp of approval.

Chivalry, a perverse sense of human egotism, and clutching of feudal

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 2/13

megalomaniac ideas or for that matter, any kind of condescending

attitude have no room. They are bound to be sent to the ancient

woods, and in the new horizon people should proclaim their own

ideas and authority. They should be able to say that they are the

persons of modern age and they have the ideas of today's "Bharat".

Any other idea floated or any song sung in the invocation of male

chauvinism is the proposition of an alien, a total stranger ‐ an

outsider. That is the truth in essentiality.

3. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of

these appeals are that the appellant filed an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) contending,

inter alia, that she married Shahid Khan, the respondent herein, on

26.4.1992 and during her stay at the matrimonial home she was

prohibited from talking to others, and the husband not only

demanded a car from the family but also started harassing her. A

3

time came when he sent her to the parental home where she was

compelled to stay for almost three months. The indifferent husband

did not come to take her back to the matrimonial home, but she

returned with the fond and firm hope that the bond of wedlock would

be sustained and cemented with love and peace but as the misfortune

would have it, the demand for the vehicle continued and the

harassment was used as a weapon for fulfilment of the demand. In

due course she came to learn that the husband had illicit relationship

with another woman and he wanted to marry her. Usual to sense of

human curiosity and wife's right when she asked him she was

assaulted. The situation gradually worsened and it became

unbearable for her to stay at the matrimonial home. At that juncture,

she sought help of her parents who came and took her to the parental

home at Lucknow where she availed treatment. Being deserted and

ill‐treated and, in a way, suffering from fear psychosis she took

shelter in the house of her parents and when all her hopes got

shattered for reunion, she filed an application for grant of

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 3/13

maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/‐ per month on the foundation

that husband was working on the post of Nayak in the Army and

getting a salary of Rs.10,000/‐ approximately apart from other perks.

4. The application for grant of maintenance was resisted with

4

immense vigour by the husband disputing all the averments

pertaining to demand of dowry and harassment and further alleging

that he had already given divorce to her on 18.6.1997 and has also

paid the Mehar to her.

5. A reply was filed to the same by wife asserting that she had

neither the knowledge of divorce nor had she received an amount of

Mehar.

6. During the proceeding before the learned Family Judge the

wife‐appellant examined herself and another, and the

respondent‐husband examined four witnesses, including himself.

The learned Family Judge, Family Court, Lucknow while dealing with

the application forming the subject matter Criminal Case No. 1120 of

1998 did not accept the primary objection as regards the

maintainability under Section 125 CrPC as the applicant was a

Muslim woman and came to hold even after the divorce the

application of the wife under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable in

the family court. Thereafter, the learned Family Judge appreciating

the evidence brought on record came to opine that the marriage

between the parties had taken place on 26.4.1992; that the husband

had given divorce on 18.6.1997; that she was ill treated at her

matrimonial home; and that she had come back to her parental house

5

and staying there; that the husband had not made any provision for

grant of maintenance; that the wife did not have any source of

income to support her, and the plea advanced by the husband that

she had means to sustain her had not been proved; that as the

husband was getting at the time of disposal of the application as per

the salary certificate Rs.17654/‐ and accordingly directed that a sum

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 4/13

of Rs.2500/‐ should be paid as monthly maintenance allowance from

the date of submission of application till the date of judgment and

thereafter Rs.4000/‐ per month from the date of judgment till the

date of remarriage.

7. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Judge came to

be assailed before the High Court in Criminal Revision wherein, the

High Court after adumbrating the facts referred to the decisions in

Anita Rani v. Rakeshpal Singh1, Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v.

Chander Prabha Devi2, Rakesh Kumar Diksh*t v. Jayanti Devi3,

Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. 4, Paras Nath Kurmi v. The

Session Judge5 and Sartaj v. State of U.P. and others 6 and came

to hold that though the learned principal Judge, Family Court had

not ascribed any reason for grant of maintenance from the date of

1 1991 (2) Crimes 725 (All)

2 1990 Cr.L.J. 1884

3 1999 (2) JIC, 323 (ACC)

4 1999 (2) 763, Allahabad J.I.C

5 1999 (2) JIC 522 All

6 2000 (2) JIC 967 All

6

application, yet when the case for maintenance was filed in the year

1998 decided on 17.2.2012 and there was no order for interim

maintenance, the grant of Rs.2500/‐ as monthly maintenance from

the date of application was neither illegal nor excessive. The High

Court took note of the fact that the husband had retired on 1.4.2012

and consequently reduced the maintenance allowance to

Rs.2000/‐from 1.4.2012 till remarriage of the appellant herein. Being

of this view the learned Single Judge modified the order passed by the

Family Court. Hence, the present appeal by special leave, at the

instance of the wife.

8. We have heard Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the

appellant. Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the

respondent.

9. It is submitted by Dr. Dubey, learned senior counsel that

Section 125 CrPC is applicable to the Muslim women and the Family

Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. It is urged by him that the

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 5/13

High Court has fallen into error by opining that the grant of

maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/‐ per month is excessive and

hence, it should be reduced to Rs.2000/‐ per month from the date of

retirement of the husband i.e. 1.4.2012 till her re‐marriage. It is also

contended that the High Court failed to appreciate the plight of the

7

appellant and reduced the amount and hence, the impugned order is

not supportable in law.

10. First of all, we intend to deal with the applicability of Section 125

CrPC to a Muslim woman who has been divorced. In Shamim Bano

v. Asraf Khan7, this Court after referring to the Constitution Bench

decisions in Danial Latifi v. Union of India8 and Khatoon Nisa v.

State of U.P.9 had opined as follows:‐

"13. The aforesaid principle clearly lays down that even

after an application has been filed under the provisions of

the Act, the Magistrate under the Act has the power to

grant maintenance in favour of a divorced Muslim woman

and the parameters and the considerations are the same as

stipulated in Section 125 of the Code. We may note that

while taking note of the factual score to the effect that the

plea of divorce was not accepted by the Magistrate which

was upheld by the High Court, the Constitution Bench

opined that as the Magistrate could exercise power under

Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance in favour

of a divorced Muslim woman under the Act, the order did

not warrant any interference. Thus, the emphasis was laid

on the retention of the power by the Magistrate under

Section 125 of the Code and the effect of ultimate

consequence.

14. Slightly recently, in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan10, a

two‐Judge Bench, placing reliance on Danial Latifi (supra),

has ruled that:‐

"21. The appellant's petition under Section 125

CrPC would be maintainable before the Family

Court as long as the appellant does not remarry.

The amount of maintenance to be awarded under

7 (2014) 12 SCC 636

8 (2001) 7 SCC 740

9 (2014) 12 SCC 646

10 (2010) 1 SCC 666

8

Section 125 CrPC cannot be restricted for the

iddat period only."

Though the aforesaid decision was rendered interpreting

Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, yet the principle

stated therein would be applicable, for the same is in

consonance with the principle stated by the Constitution

Bench in Khatoon Nisa (supra)."

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 6/13

In view of the aforesaid dictum, there can be no shadow of doubt

that Section 125 CrPC has been rightly held to be applicable by the

learned Family Judge.

11. On a perusal of the order passed by the Family Court, it is

manifest that it has taken note of the fact that the salary of the

husband was Rs.17,654/‐ in May, 2009. It had fixed Rs.2,500/‐ as

monthly maintenance from the date of submission of application till

the date of order i.e. 17.2.2012 and from the date of order, at the rate

of Rs.4,000/‐ per month till the date of remarriage. The High Court

has opined that while granting maintenance from the date of

application, judicial discretion has to be appropriately exercised, for

the High Court has noted that the grant of maintenance at the rate of

Rs.2,500/‐ per month from the date of application till date of order,

did not call for modification.

12. The aforesaid finding of the High Court, affirming the view of the

learned Family Judge is absolutely correct. But what is disturbing is

9

that though the application for grant of maintenance was filed in the

year 1998, it was not decided till 17.2.2012. It is also shocking to

note that there was no order for grant of interim maintenance. It

needs no special emphasis to state that when an application for grant

of maintenance is filed by the wife the delay in disposal of the

application, to say the least, is an unacceptable situation. It is, in

fact, a distressing phenomenon. An application for grant of

maintenance has to be disposed of at the earliest. The family courts,

which have been established to deal with the matrimonial disputes,

which include application under Section 125 CrPC, have become

absolutely apathetic to the same. The concern and anguish that was

expressed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and

Ors.11, is to the following effect:‐

"13. The Family Courts have been established for adopting

and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with

family disputes in a speedy and expeditious manner. A

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 7/13

three‐Judge Bench in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.

Shahida , while highlighting on the purpose of bringing in

12

the Family Courts Act by the legislature, opined thus:‐

"The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for

the establishment of Family Courts with a view to

promote conciliation in, and secure speedy

settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and

family affairs and for matters connected

therewith."

11 AIR 2014 SC 2875

12 (2003) 4 SCC 166

10

14. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the

case at hand the proceeding before the Family Court was

conducted without being alive to the objects and reasons of

the Act and the spirit of the provisions Under

Section 125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the case

continued for nine years before the Family Court. It has

come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions

the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a

routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties

suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst

victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the

law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to

be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely

delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and

issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean

that the Family Courts should show undue haste or

impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience

and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with

a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that

the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before

it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also

gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It

leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still

left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must

reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any

of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family

Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before

him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed

it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges

shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as

expeditiously as possible keeping in view the objects and

reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions

pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of

child, property disputes, etc." [emphasis

supplied]

13. When the aforesaid anguish was expressed, the predicament was

not expected to be removed with any kind of magic. However, the fact

remains, these litigations can really corrode the human relationship

11

not only today but will also have the impact for years to come and has

the potentiality to take a toll on the society. It occurs either due to

the uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 8/13

shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts. As far as the first

aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the Courts to curtail them.

There need not be hurry but procrastination should not be manifest,

reflecting the attitude of the Court. As regards the second facet, it is

the duty of the Court to have the complete control over the proceeding

and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time

without knowing when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a

corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown bank of the river. It

cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook. "Men may come and

men may go, but I go on for ever." This would be the greatest tragedy

that can happen to the adjudicating system which is required to deal

with most sensitive matters between the man and wife or other family

members relating to matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to

be a pro‐active approach in this regard and the said approach should

be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial Academies

functioning under the High Courts. For the present, we say no more.

14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is

noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the

12

husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on

record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs.17,654/‐.

15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the

monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/‐. In today's world, it is

extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in

a position to manage within Rs.2,000/‐ per month. It can never be

forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section

125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as

mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled

to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to

be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself.

The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children

are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can

never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 9/13

leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has

fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for

sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar

manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And

that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play

and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a

prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of

13

maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be

adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in

her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a

destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order

under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having

sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes,

a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means

to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well.

These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in

law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to

support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife,

for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC,

unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the

quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v.

District Judge Dehradun & Ors.13 has held as follows:‐

"The court has to consider the status of the parties, their

respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having

regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance

and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but

involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of

maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can

live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the

mode of life she was used to when she lived with her

husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the

prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so

fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

13 (1997) 7 SCC 7

14

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of

social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai14, it has been

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 10/13

ruled that:‐

"Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is

specially enacted to protect women and children and as

noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v.

Veena Kaushal15 falls within constitutional sweep of Article

15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It

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. 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. The

aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai

Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat16."

This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband

to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is

unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he

is capable of earning.

17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the

judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash

Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash17 wherein it has been

opined thus:‐

"An able‐bodied young man has to be presumed to be

capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able

14 (2008) 2 SCC 316

15 (1978) 4 SCC 70

16 (2005) 3 SCC 636

17 AIR 1968 Delhi 174

15

reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be

heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to

be able to maintain them according to the family standard.

It is for such able‐bodies person to show to the Court

cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons

beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal

obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the

husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of

his income, the presumption will be easily permissible

against him."

18. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the

obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question

of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves

the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is

deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces.

Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be

a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune.

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 11/13

At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the

husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only

soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny.

Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.

19. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the

amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/‐ to Rs.2,000/‐. As is

manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the fact that she

has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned

16

Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible

which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when

the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no

revisional court should have interfered with the reason on the base

that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When

substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere.

There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other

real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had

retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%.

It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved

reduction. It only reflects the non‐application of mind and, therefore,

we are unable to sustain the said order.

20. Having stated the principle, we would have proceeded to record

our consequential conclusion. But, a significant one, we cannot be

oblivious of the asseverations made by the appellant. It has been

asserted that the respondent had taken voluntary retirement after the

judgment dated 17.2.2012 with the purpose of escaping the liability

to pay the maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner; that the

last drawn salary of respondent taken into account by the learned

Family Judge was Rs.17,564/‐ as per salary slip of May, 2009 and

after deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the salary of the respondent

17

was Rs.12,564/‐ and hence, even on the basis of the last basic pay

(i.e. Rs.9,830/‐) of the respondent the total pension would come to

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 12/13

Rs.14,611/‐ and if 40% of commutation is taken into account then

the pension of the respondent amounts to Rs.11,535/‐; and that the

respondent, in addition to his pension, hand received encashment of

commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. Rs.3,84,500/‐ and other retiral

dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, Gratuity and leave encashment to the tune of

Rs.16,01,455/‐.

21. The aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the

respondent‐husband has not appeared and contested the matter.

Therefore, we are disposed to accept the assertions. This exposition

of facts further impels us to set aside the order of the High Court.

22. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the orders passed by the

High Court are set aside and that of the Family Court is restored.

There shall be no order as to costs.

........................................J.

[DIPAK MISRA]

........................................J.

[PRAFULLA C. PANT]

NEW DELHI

APRIL 06, 2015.

18

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.5 SECTION II

(For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Crl.A. Nos.564‐565 of 2015 @

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6380‐6381/2014

SHAMIMA FAROOQUI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SHAHID KHAN Respondent(s)

Date: 06/04/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement

of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR

For Respondent(s)

4/8/2015 courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr 6380638114p.

txt

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sr%206380638114p.

txt 13/13

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble

Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)

Court Master Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)



Learning

 12 Replies

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     10 April 2015

Dear Querist

in this Judgment there is no issues raised by the respondent then how the court will consider all the above points.

judgment is rightly held and set aside the HC Order

roshuv (Manager)     10 April 2015

Thank u Sir For your Reply.

The Queries are regarding RULING of SC.

As per the judgement is it now Rule? for every Family court in India to award Maintenance as per Crpc 125 irrespective of MERITs of the case. and the other queries as raised by author only.

If it is so then it really fearsome for Men in INdia. Even after doing nothing wrong who wants to pay the price sir.

ADVOCATE TRILOK (CRIMINAL family PROPERTY topfreind@gmail.com )     10 April 2015

Even SUPREME COURT  can not change the law it can only define it.

 

This verdict is in continuation of earlier one which has been stated in it.

 

The law provides for disability of the spouse but no husband  takes it properly other than pleadings without any evidence.

 

If you can prove the conditions stated in law than no wife whether HINDU  or MUSLIM   can be given any relief.

 

Please   read following two important observations confirmed in this JUDGMENT .

 

One-   unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

  SO IT HAS RETAINED  AND CONFIRMED DISQUALIFICATION CLAUSE OF THE LAW.

 

 

Second- It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his
wife and child.

When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.”

1 Like

roshuv (Manager)     15 April 2015

Thanks Trilok Sir, for your excellent comments........

from your words it seems Hope is their for innocent ... non guilty husbands............

Further I've read nd heard about court craft which able lawyers rely upon.......

In the Case Respodent has failed to prove her means to sustain herself…

I understand SC explains if means of sustainability of Wife is produced  (education ...work experience etc) there is chance of DENIAL of maintenance ?

Thanks

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com)     16 April 2015

Yes but most husbands due to over confidence and immature advice fail to take proper steps at initial stages and than blame every body else and themselves.

1 Like

N R Dash.. (Advocate)     16 April 2015

The "Disqualification" clause is already there in 125 CrPC. However, it is a general mindset of the local Judges, who actually pass such orders, to favour the woman. They rarely pay any attention to examine & enquire the facts for establishing "disqualification". Any petition filed by the wife u/s 125 CrPC is taken for granted that she will end up with a grant in maintenance favouring her.

 

Passing such an order by the SC will just provide an impetus towards the traditional mindset of the Judiciary. A woman is not always right. There are many instances innocent husbands are suffering. It is an undoubted fact that this order & the ones who take it as a thumb rule will make the life of such innocent husbands a hell.

 

Being into the legal fraternity, I don't blame the law makers, but the executers. It is not the law, but the mindset of the Judiciary who actually enforce the law, needs to be changed.

1 Like

ADVOCATE TRILOK (CRIMINAL family PROPERTY topfreind@gmail.com )     16 April 2015

You can not blame legal system for lousy handling  of the case from initial stages.


Pleadings, allegations are not sufficient, you have to prove with evidence. It is easy at initial stages but after orders are passed the remedies shrink.

N R Dash.. (Advocate)     16 April 2015

No matter how we project, but that's the fact my friend.

ADVOCATE TRILOK (CRIMINAL family PROPERTY topfreind@gmail.com )     16 April 2015

Here lies the problem.

 

Not projecting  give evidence..

 

Create proof that you are giving all the facilities beyond your means to keep the spouse happy.

Create out of way records to show that you are ignoring all the excesses.

 

And last but not least if the other side has loose foots , create hard evidence.

 

And there are many other legal loopholes which can  not be discussed on public web site.

 

NO COURT HAS SAID  SO FAR AND NO LAW HAS MADE PROVISION THAT THE INNOCENT HUSBAND SHOULD SUFFER.

 

Even read the stories on this site alone. There is not a single one to show that hard read evidence was ignored. What all the people are telling the spouse is false but no evidence to disprove or discredit them.

1 Like

N R Dash.. (Advocate)     16 April 2015

"And there are many other legal loopholes which can  not be discussed on public web site."

 

Finally you acknowledge. Cheers :)

2 Like

roshuv (Manager)     17 April 2015

Thanks Avd Trilok Sir and Dash Sir,

Comments made that " Husband if Doesn't reveal his income then presumption is aginst him"

Husbands fear that his Huge Income might draw One time Alimony (If demanded) or Maintenance.

Even if the judgement is in favour of Husband and woman has FAILED to prove her ALLEGATIONS.

Further in All over India lower courts might favour woman seeing the Huge income of Husband. Despite of woman being CAPABLE of earning and Highly Educated.

It depends on luck of the husband. (my feeling)

Thanks

Samir N (General Queries) (Business)     17 April 2015

I went through the above judgment cursorily and had commented earlier in another post without having looked at the judgment. The following are my comments, some of which were repeated in another post on the same subject:


  • The most important fact here is that the respondent husband was not there to contest the case so all factual conclusions were held against him. 
  • The judgment talks about maintenance "within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC," So, husband should argue this point in this judgment. "Parameters" are not defined anywhere in the statute or in the judgment... Gray areas leave room to exploit.
  • "If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right." There are many loopholes in here: unless disqualified is not defined anywhere in the judgment and that is the point that should be harped upon when arguing against maintenance. Healthy, able-bodied... again... can be exploited.
  • "At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." Wow! Who decides what is excessive or extortionate? This is not quantified in the judgment so husbands can always argue that the maintenance demanded is "excessive and extortionate."
  • "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." When they are unable to maintain themselves. So, an educated wife is able to maintain herself... This age-old protection of husbands against maintenance demands made by their educated wives has remained intact.

In practice, facts decide maintenance and that is how it should be. There are complex parameters involved but, in general, fairness prevails. Anybody, husband or wife, dreaming that they can use any judgment to be unfair to the other party is living in a fool's paradise. 


What is really nice about this judgment is the tirade against Family Court judges who procrastinate cases. Anyone trying to expedite their Family Court proceedings, husband or wife, will find solace in this judgment. Every sentence there should be repeated in any application to be filed to expedite family Court proceedings. This judgment, in my humble opinion, is seminal more for expediting cases rather than for any support on maintenance, for husband or wife. I do not recollect ever seeing any judgment that states so cogently the need to expedite Family Court proceedings. 


USUAL DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE...  Thought the judgment was thought provoking...

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query