Prioritize Expeditious Disposal Of Maintenance Cases of Destitute Women: Allahabad High Court

The Court also asked the Director of Judicial Training & Research Institute to sensitise the judicial officers during regular training sessions to observe judicial discipline and maintain judicial propriety in such matters.

The High Court passed such directions while considering a criminal revision filed by the revisionist-wife. The wife had already instituted the proceedings for maintenance U/S.125 CrPC.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said, “...the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, dismissed the maintenance petition for non-prosecution and consigned the file to the records mechanically with the most insensitivity.”

Advocate Braj Mohan Singh represented the Revisionist while Government Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the Opposite Party.

The revisionist-wife got married to the respondent-husband in 2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and approximately Rs 10 lakh were spent on the solemnization of the marriage by the revisionist-wife’s parents. The revisionist-wife was discharging all the matrimonial obligations and in the year 2015, a baby girl was born out of the said wedlock, who was residing with the revisionist-wife. Despite performing all matrimonial obligations, the in-laws started raising demands of dowry and perpetuating cruelty on the revisionist-wife both mentally and physically.

It was alleged that the younger brother of the respondent-husband had attempted to outrage the modesty of the revisionist-wife many times, to which she complained to her husband but he remained silent. In the year 2017, the respondent-husband’s younger brother attempted to commit rape upon the revisionist-wife. A medical examination was also conducted. Since then, the revisionist-wife had been living separately. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the respondent-husband works as a Supervisor in a factory and earns more than Rs.45,000 per month whereas revisionist-wife has no source of income, and she is living a life of destitute.

When the wife approached the Family Court, the Judge awarded Rs 5000 per month to the revisionist-wife and Rs 3000 per month to the minor child till she attained the age of majority or solemnization of her marriage but the respondent-husband didn’t pay a single penny to the destitute wife. The respondent-husband’s application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist-wife preferred the instant revision petition before the High Court.

The Bench, at the outset, noted, “It is anomalous that despite having a grudging endorsement by the destitute revisionist wife, who has been regularly visiting the courts since 2018 and had lost all hope from the learned Family Court to get timely justice, she thus made the aforesaid endorsement with hope and expectation that a better sense would prevail on the learned Family Judge to decide her maintenance application pending almost for last six years undecided.”

The Bench noticed that she regularly attended the court proceedings diligently and perhaps had no idea of the endorsement's consequences and outcome. The High Court had also asked for a report from all the Family Courts of District Saharanpur with regard to the compliance of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and this Court from time to time. To this, the Principal Judge Family Court, Saharanpur, submitted a report stating that the Family Courts are adhering to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) and the High Court in Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, (2023) in letter and spirit.

Coming to the merits of the case, the Bench noticed that by a previous order, the High Court remanded the instant case to the Principal Judge Family Court, Saharanpur, to ensure compliance with guidelines issued in aforesaid cases while deciding the applicant’s case afresh. “This Court hopes that the applicant’s case must have been decided in accordance with the judgements referred to herein above and, if not, then shall be decided within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order on merits”, it held.

The Bench further said, “Acknowledging the facts of the case and the realities of prolonged court proceedings, this Court emphasizes the urgent need for learned Family Court judges to exercise their judicial mind with heightened sensitivity and responsibility. The judicial system must prioritize the expeditious disposal of maintenance cases of destitute women who are left without support from their parents, in-laws, or husbands, ensuring that justice is not delayed for those struggling for basic maintenance and dignity in society.”

Noting that timely justice lies in retaining the essence of sensitivity towards the cause at hand and upholding the judiciary's societal responsibility, the Bench said, “Therefore, learned family court judges must perform their judicial duties with heightened responsibility, sensitivity, and a steadfast commitment to delivering timely justice while upholding judicial discipline and propriety.”

Disposing of the petition, the Bench ordered, “The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Director JTRI to sensitise the judicial officers during regular training sessions to observe judicial discipline and maintain judicial propriety in following directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Rajnesh case (supra) and directions issued by this court in Smt. Parul Tyagi case (supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena case (supra) in letter and spirit. A checklist of essential points, including a clear outline of do's, should be prepared and circulated among the learned family court judges from time to time accordingly.”

Cause Title: X v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:192598)

Appearance:

Revisionist:Advocate Braj Mohan Singh

Opposite Party: Government Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra

Click here toread/download Order