The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the object of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC is not to punish a person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held that as settled by the Apex Court, Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children.
“…the provision of section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and while adjudicating a matter pertaining to this provision, it must be borne in mind that the dominant object of Section 125 is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and that it being a measure of social legislation, it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children,” the court said.
The observations were made in a revision petition moved by a woman against the judgment and order of the Family Court which had rejected her plea under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
The woman had argued that the Family Court had erred in its decision as it passed the impugned order on the sole ground that she was staying separately from her husband without any just reason.
The counsel for the woman submitted that in fact the woman had been forced to leave her matrimonial home in 2014 and there was sufficient evidence to show that she had sufficient cause and reasons to live separately. But her evidence had not been considered by the court below in the correct perspective, the counsel asserted.
While stating that the woman had no source of income to maintain herself, her counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Kiran Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another in support of his submissions.
He also apprised the court that the husband of the woman had a monthly income of Rs 60,000 and the woman had been forced to leave husband’s house as she was being harassed by the husband’s family members for dowry.
However, the Additional Government Advocate argued that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Considering the submissions made and the material available on record, the court said, “It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife”.
Court added that: “Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive”.
The single judge bench noted that though the trial court had recorded in the impugned order that the woman was legally wedded wife of the husband and that she had no source of income to maintain herself and that she had not been provided any maintenance so far, it dismissed the woman’s case.
Moreover, the court highlighted that while adjudicating the woman’s plea for maintenance, the trial court had treated the case in a manner like in criminal trial.
“Family Court disbelieved the evidence of the revisionist on the ground that there are some material contradictions in her statement. However, perusal of record shows that on material aspects of the case, there is no material contradiction in her statement,” the court observed.
The high court said that proceedings under section 125 CrPC are of summary nature and in such matters evidence of claimant/wife seeking maintenance is not to be appreciated in a manner like in criminal trial for offences under Indian Penal Code or other substantial criminal offences.
Therefore, finding that the Family Court committed error by rejecting the application of the woman on the ground that she was staying away from her husband without any sufficient reason, the court allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter back to the Family Court and pass an order afresh in accordance with law.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment