Delhi District Court
Smt. Savita vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar on 29 September, 2009
1 I N THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI. CC Number:457/1 ( Date of filing :13062008) Smt. Savita .....Petitioner Vs. Sh. Mahesh Kumar .....Respondent ORDER
1. Through t he presen t order I shall d ispose of t he issue regarding t he ` i n ter i m ma i n tenance ' in t he presen t case.
2. The case of t he pet i t ioner is t ha t she was wedded t o t he Responden t Husband on 08022000 accord i ng to t he Hindu ri tes & r i tua ls and t he paren ts of t he pe t i t i oner have spen t abou t four l acs in t he marr i age and given all dowry ar t ic les as per t he i r demands. It is sta ted t ha t af ter t he marriage t he pe t i t i oner and responden t resided and cohab i ted at Delhi a t t he place of t he pe t i t ioner.
3. It is averred t ha t since t he i ncep t ion of t he marr iage t he behav i our and conduc t of t he responden t and o ther fam ily members was very poor and t hey always raised t he more and more demand of dowry. It is sta ted t ha t t he fa ther of t he pet i t i oner has g i ven a scooter and cash of Rs.31000/ in t he marr iage apar t from all other i tems and af ter t ha t t hey Page 1 of 6 2 have ra ised a demand of cash of rupees one lac w i t h one Maru t i Car and when t he pet i t ioner fai led t o fulf il t heir demands t hey t hey star ted bea t i ng w i t h t he pe t i t i oner of and on.
4. It is fur t her averred t ha t finally on 1012008 t he responden t gave merciless bea t i ngs and shun t ou t t he pet i t ioner from his ma t r i mon ia l house and since t hen pe ti t i oner is residing a t her paren ta l house at t he mercy of t he i r paren ts. A ma t ter before t he CAW Cell is also pending for considera t ion.
5. It is sta ted by t he pe t i t i oner t ha t responden t is a man of sta t us and do ing t he work of Tour and Travel and hav i ng 34 taxies of h is own and earn ing Rs.20,000/ per mon t h and apar t from t h is responden t is having ren ta l and i n terest i ncome and have no o ther l iab ili ty excep t to ma i n ta i n t he pet i t ioner. Petit i oner prayed for in terim ma i n tenance of Rs.10,000/ per mon t h.
6. The responden thusband has fi led t he rep l y t o t he pet i t ion and has no t denied t he fac t um of marr iage w i th t he pe t i t i oner. Howeve r, t he responden t has denied t he other facts of neg lec t & ma l trea t men t. It was denied t ha t t he responden thusband had ever t rea ted t he pe t i t ioner w i fe w i th cruel ty. It was also denied t ha t t he husband had ever w i llfu lly neglec ted t he pe t i t i onerw i fe. It is fur ther denied t ha t any demand of dowry was raised and on non fu llfil men t of t he same pe t i t ioner was t rea ted w i t h cruel ty. Responden t has denied t ha t he is earn i ng Page 2 of 6 3 Rs.20,000/ per mon t h as alleged by t he pet i t ioner. It is sta ted by t he responden t t ha t he is work i ng as an Au to driver under t he emp l oymen t of Sm t. Kiran Gupta and earns Rs.25003000/ per mon t h and has go t no other source of income as alleged by t he pe t i t ioner.
7. The pet i t ionerw i fe has f iled t he re joinder/replica t i on to t he rep l y of t he responden thusband and has re i tera ted t he pe t i t i on.
8. I have heard t he learned counsels for t he par t ies and have also perused t he records. I have g i ven t hough t fu l considera t ion t o t he con ten t i ons of t he par t ies. The appl ica tion of t he prov ision of Se .125 Cr.P.C. rests on t he edifice of ` neg l ect ' v isàv is ma t r i mon i al ob liga t ions. The objec t of t he ma i n tenance proceed i ngs is no t to pun ish a person for h is pas t neglec t, bu t to preven t vagrancy by compe lling t hose who can prov i de suppor t t o t hose who are unab le t o suppor t t hemselves and who have a mora l claim to suppor t . Sect ion 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social j ust ice and is specia lly enac ted t o pro tec t women and children and falls w i t h i n const i tu t i ona l sweep of Ar ticle 15(3) reinforced by Ar tic le 39 of t he Const i tu t i on of India, 1950. It is mean t to achieve a social purpose. The ob jec t is t o preven t vagrancy and dest i t u t i on. It provides a speedy remedy for t he supp l y of food, cloth i ng and shel ter to t he deser ted w i fe. It g i ves ef fec t to fundamen tal righ ts and na tura l du t i es of a man to ma i n ta i n h is w i fe, chi ldren and paren ts when t hey are unable t o ma i n ta i n t hemse l ves.
9 . The asser t i ons made by each of t he par t i es are con t en t i ous and could only be decided a f t er cogen t ev i dence is produced .
10. A j udgmen t en t i t l ed "Tarak Shaw v. M i n to Shaw" (Calcu t t a high Page 3 of 6 4 Cour t ) repor t ed as 198 4 CRI . L. J. 206 cit a t ion has been cited on beha l f of t he pe t i t i one rw i f e wh ich says t ha t me re l y because t he husband was adjudica ted insolven t under prov isions of t he Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, he would not be absolved of his liab ilit y under S.125, Cr.P.C. t o ma i n t ain h is w i fe and ch ild because under t he la t ter provision of law, no t only his v isib le income bu t also h is capacity t o work and earn a salary were re levan t. Therefore, un l ess he fur ther establ ished t ha t for wha t ever reason he had no means or capaci t y to work and earn a salary and t ha t he had not w il lfu lly neglec ted to suppor t t hem, he could be proceeded against under t he said S.125, Cr.P.C. In t he said case t he husband had go t himself declared as i nsolven t on h is appl icat i on and sough t from t he Insolvency Cour t an order of pro tec t ion under S.25, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act aga inst h is w i fe 's ma i n tenance app licat ion under S.125, Cr.P.C.
11. In a recen t judgmen t en t i t l ed ########### # ## # ## # # # #### # # #### # ## # ## #### # ### # # ## # ## # ### # # ### t he quest i on of adequa te and suf ficien t emp l oymen t of the w i fe, as the cla i m i ng par t y, has been deal t w i t h and t he Hon'b le Supreme Cour t held : ################################### ### # ######### # ## # ######## # ##### # ### # ###### # ## # ### # ####### # ## # ######## ################ #### ################ # ###### # ######## ############ # ####### ############################## ########################################### ######################################################################### ##############
12. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. M rs . Veena Kaushal and o the rs , AIR 1978 SC 1807 i t was observed t hus: ##### ######### ## # ####### ## ###### ####### ### ######### ####### ## ####### ##### ### ######## ### ##### ###### ### ############## ##### ## ####### ##### ########## ## ####### Page 4 of 6 5 ### ## #### ## ##### #### ######## ## ######## ####### ### ############# ## ###### ### ### ######### ##### ### ####### ##### #### ###### ######### ## ######## ### ######## ######## ## ### ############## ####### ### ### ###### ######## #### ##### ### ######## #### ###### ############## ## ## ### ## #### ###### ########## ## ####### ## ## ######## ## ## ######### ## ####### ### #### ############## ### ## ### ############ ##### ######## ### ##### # ### ##### ## ### ###########
13. The Law Comm ission of I nd i a in i ts 132 nd repor t had observed t ha t for a f air and a j us t de t e r m i na t i on of t he amoun t of ma i n t enance ( to t he w i f e ) no t on ly t he mon t h l y income of t he husband bu t a lso a l l h is o t her resources ex ist i ng may be t aken in to accoun t . I n t he said repor t i t was r ei t era t ed t ha t i n India t he econom i c i ndependence of t he w i fe is st ill a rari ty. The l aw comm ission wh i le quo t i ng Bai Tahra 's case (1979 Cr. L. J. 151) observed t ha t Ar t icle 15 has compe lling compassiona te re levance i n t he con tex t of S.125 of Cr.P.C. and t he benefi tofdoub t i f any i n sta t u tory in terpre ta t i on belongs to t he w i fe. Protec tion aga inst mo ra l ma ter ia l abandonmen t mani fest i n Ar t.39, is par t of social and econom i c j ust ice specified i n Ar t icle 38, fulf ill men t of wh ich is fundamen t al to t he governance of coun try. (Ar t icle 37). The law Comm ission also had dif feren t i a ted t he ` po ten t ia lit y t o earn ' from unable t o ma i n ta i n herself ' w i t h respect t o t he w i fe.
14. In t he presen t case af ter assessing t he prov ision (being woman orien ted) and af ter go ing t hrough t he var ious j udgmen ts of t he Hon ' b l e Supreme Cour t I f i nd t ha t t he plea of t he woman is to be p laced h i gher. I also need to rem i nd myself t ha t S.125 of t he Cr.P.C. is social legisla t ion. Therefore I Page 5 of 6 6 am at t h is stage not hesi tan t t ha t a pr i ma facie case exists for an in terim ma i n tenance. The me ri ts of t he case howeve r, need cogen t ev i dence. 15 . In view of t he fac ts & circums tances of t he case and t he judgmen ts quo ted I have conc luded t ha t t he w i fe deserves i n ter i m ma i n tenance a t t h is stage. According l y I gran t t he pet i t ionerw i fe a ma i n tenance of Rs1500/ per mon t h from t he da te of f iling of app lica t ion t i ll t he final disposal of t he presen t case. The presen t app lica t ion stands d isposed of. The above said order t o be comp lied w i th i mmed i a te ef fec t. Howeve r, noth i ng con ta i ned herein shall t an tamoun t t o any expression on t he mer i t of t he case.
Put up for PE on 15122009.
Announced i n t he open cour t on t h is 29 t h day of Sep tembe r, 2009.
# ##### #### # ############ ########### ##### ##### # ####### ##### ####### ### ##### Page 6 of 6