Sushma vs Roshan Lal

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the order dated 04.05.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, whereby a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month was granted as maintenance to the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the respondent-husband was earning Rs. 50,000/- by running a private school and as such the amount granted to the petitioner for her maintenance, is inadequate.

The operative part of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, reads as follows:--

Law is well settled 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 do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have moral claim to support. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. gives effect to the fundamental and natural duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The said Section provides a swift and cheap remedy against any person who despite sufficient means neglects or refuges to maintain his wife, minor or major child either legitimate or illegitimate (being a married daughter), his father or mother when they are unable to maintain themselves. The primary object of the Section is to prevent starvation and vagrancy. This Section is a measure of social justice and is specifically enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife, children and parents so that they are not left beggared and destituted on the scrapheap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The jurisdiction of the Court is preventive and not remedial and certainly not punitive. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has also held in Shail Kumari Devi and Another Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, that maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to later. It was further held that it is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Bearing these legal principles in mind, it is to be seen whether the applicant-wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her respondent-husband who has allegedly refused to maintain her despite being possessed of sufficient means.

The fact of solemnization of marriage between the parties is not disputed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she does not own any moveable or immovable property in her name and has no source of income and presently residing in rental home when she was turned out from her matrimonial home. No proof has been given on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner-wife is living in adultery with someone, as has been alleged by him in his reply to the petition. He has himself admitted that he is running a private school in the name of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar at village Petwar. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and currently soaring prices of the bare necessities of daily life, such as food, medicines, clothes and other unforeseen incidental expenses vis-�-vis and earning capacities of the parties, the ends of justice would be served if the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to his petitioner-wife as maintenance allowance from the date of filing the present petition. It is ordered accordingly. The petition thus stands disposed of finally, without any order as to costs. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

The learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar has recorded the sound reasons for awarding a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner-wife. There is no ambiguity, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order, and as such, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.