Woman Who Leaves Matrimonial Home Is Deprived Of Many A Comfort; Husband Is Bound To Give Monetary Comfort: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court, while upholding the grant of maintenance to a wife, observed that a woman who leaves the matrimonial home is deprived of many a comfort and therefore the husband is bound to give monetary comfort.
The Court also said that if a husband is healthy, able-bodied, in a position to support himself and not disqualified, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife.
The Bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi observed, “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 that she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. 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. I have also considered the findings given and conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge concerned while passing impugned order and found that no error is committed by the learned Judge concerned, which requires any interference from the hands of this Court.”
Advocate Pruthviraj Solanki appeared for the Petitioner/Applicant while APP Jyoti Bhatt and Advocate Kuldeep Vaidya appeared for the Respondents.
A petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby the Petitioner-Husband was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Respondent-wife.
The main issue for the Court’s consideration was whether the impugned order granting maintenance deserved to be interfered with. The marriage between the parties was solemnized but after the marriage, mental and physical harassment was meted out to the wife and, thereafter, she was driven out from her matrimonial house, which led to the filing of an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), for maintenance, which on the strength of the material and evidence available on record, was partly allowed by the Family Court awarding maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/-.
The main facet of the argument canvassed by the husband relying upon Section 125(4) of the CrPC was that as per said section, as the wife had deserted the husband, she was not entitled to any maintenance.
On this, the Court said that after perusing Section 125, the wife was deserted from her matrimonial house and because of the mental and physical torture meted out to her, she was not ready to go and stay with the husband and the said fact was stated by her in her cross-examination. Further, the Court said that Section 125 of the CrPC is a legal provision that empowers a person, typically a wife, children, or parents, to claim maintenance from another person, usually the husband or father, who is legally obligated to provide support but has failed to do so. The primary aim of this provision is to prevent destitution and to secure the financial interests of those in need, it added.
“Over and above that, 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" in the instant case 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. Thus from the above facts, it is clear that it is an admitted position of fact that the petitioner – husband has driven/ deserted the wife and, hence, submission canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant relying upon said section is misconceived.”, the Court observed.
The Court relied on the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021),Chaturbhai Vs. Sita Bai (2008) and Jabsir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. (1997).
The Court also held that there could be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 of the CrPC could be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. The Court remarked that in many cases, 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 or he also has a responsibility to maintain other family members as also having medical expenses. The Court added, “However, 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 of the CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. Therefore, submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant are misconceived.”
Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition filed by the Husband and upheld the impugned order.
Cause Title: xxxx v. yyyy (Neutral Citation:2024:GUJHC:38949)
Appearances:
Petitioner/Applicant: Advocates Pruthviraj Solanki and AS Asthavadi
Respondents: APP Jyoti Bhatt and Advocate Kuldeep Vaidya
