ANJU GARG & ANR versus DEEPAK KUMAR GARG

ANJU GARG & ANR.

DEEPAK KUMAR GARG

(Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2022)

SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 125 – Order formaintenance of wives, children and parents – Basis purpose u/s.125 – Held: Is to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financialsuffering of woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home,so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her tosustain herself and the children – Husband is required to earn moneyeven by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could notavoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds –On facts, the wife on account of harassment and cruelty by husband,was forced to leave her matrimonial home alongwith her children,sought maintenance u/s. 125 – High Court without assigning anyreasons, upheld the erroneous and perverse order of the familycourt rejecting maintenance application of mother and her daughter– Having regard to the evidence on record, it is clear that the husbandhad sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, and had failedand neglected to maintain the wife and his children – In view thereof,wife to be paid maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per monthfrom the date of filing of the maintenance petition over and abovethe maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the familycourt to the son.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived toameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of womanwho is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that somesuitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustainherself and the children. In the instant case, the Family Courthad disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanctduty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife andto the minor children. The husband is required to earn moneyeven by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not

DEF

Aavoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible groundsmentioned in the statute. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is measure ofsocial justice and is specially enacted to protect women andchildren. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. [Paras9 and 10][914-E-F; 916-E-G]B

1.2 An erroneous and perverse order of Family Court wasunfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing veryperfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigningany reasons, passed the impugned order in very casual manner.This Court would have remanded the matter back to the HighCCourt for considering it afresh, however considering the fact thatthe matter has been pending before this Court since the last fouryears, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings,this Court deemed it proper to pass this order. [Para 12][917-G-H]

1.3 The Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to acceptthe submission of the respondent that he has no source of incomeas his party business has now been closed. The respondent beingan able- bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means andmaintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to theEevidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and havingregard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitationin holding that though the respondent had sufficient source ofincome and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintainthe appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances,it is proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- perFmonth to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenanceallowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to theappellant no. 2-son. Thus, the respondent is directed paymaintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition beforeGthe Family Court. [Paras 13 and 14][918-A-D]Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC353 : [2014] 8 SCR 858; Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008)2 SCC 316 : [2007] 12 SCR 577 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1693 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision (F) No. 05of 2017.

Sandeep Jindal, Om Prakash Vyas, Ms. Rachita Garg, SandeepKumar Dwivedi, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Neeraj Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.

Dushyant Parashar, Manu P., Dinesh Pandey, Muthu Velpalani,Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The appellants herein are the wife and the son of the respondent.The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10[th]September 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 05/2017, whereby the High Courthas dismissed the Revision application filed by the appellants, challengingthe order passed by the District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad,Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”). The FamilyCourt vide order dated 09.12.2016 had dismissed the MaintenancePetition filed by the appellants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., qua theappellant no. 1 -wife (original applicant no. 1) and her daughterMs. Megha Garg (original applicant no. 2), and had allowed the applicationqua the son-appellant no. 2 (original applicant no.3) granting himmaintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of filingof application till he attained the age of 18 years.

3) The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that theappellant no.1 and the respondent had married on 07.12.1991 as per theHindu rites and out of the said wedlock, two children i.e., daughter MeghaGarg and son Rachit Garg were born on 10.10.1992 and 11.04.1999

Arespectively. The appellants (original applicants) filed the MaintenancePetition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from therespondent alleging inter-alia that the respondent was subjecting theappellant-wife to utmost cruelty and physical and mental torture. As aresult thereof, she had to leave her matrimonial home along with childrentime and again. Allegations were also made against the respondent thatBhe was demanding Rs. One crore as dowry from the father of theappellant no. 1. Though, her father had given him Rs. 2,00,000/- in 2005,and had also made payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- to one Rajdip SoanIndustries, on behalf of the respondent to pay off the loan, the respondenthad continued to harass the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant alongCwith her children left the matrimonial home in 2010 and started residingin rental premises. According to the appellants-applicants, therespondent had failed and neglected to maintain them, and they beingunable to maintain themselves, the Maintenance Petition under section125 of Cr.P.C. was filed.

D4) The said petition was contested by the respondent by filing areply. The respondent while not denying the marriage with the appellantno.1, had denied the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry andharassment. He also denied that he had failed and neglected to maintainthe appellants. According to him, the appellant had left her matrimonialhome along with children without any reason. The respondent whileEadmitting that daughter Megha was born out of his wedlock with theappellant, had alleged that the appellant no. 2 Master Rachit was not hisbiological son.5) The Family Court vide the order dated 15.07.2014 had grantedInterim Maintenance Allowance of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour ofFthe appellants, however, the daughter Megha having attained majority,no interim maintenance was granted to her. It appears that the respondenthad filed an application in the Family Court praying for the DNA test tosubstantiate his allegation that the son Rachit was not his biological son,however his application was dismissed by the Family Court vide orderGdated 19.02.2014. It further appears that despite issuance of conditionalwarrants of arrest against the respondent by the Family Court, he hadfailed to appear in the Court and to make payment of interim maintenance,and therefore his defence was also struck off vide the order dated16.07.2015. The respondent had challenged all the three orders passedby the Family Court, by filing Revision Applications before the HighH

Court, however, in none of the said proceedings, the High Court hadgranted any stay of the proceedings of the Family Court. The appellant-wife, therefore, in support of her petition examined herself along withother 04 witnesses and adduced documentary evidence, The Family Courtafter appreciating the said evidence passed the order rejecting theapplication of appellant no.1 and her daughter, and granting maintenanceallowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the appellant no.2 (original applicantno.3). As stated earlier, being aggrieved by the same, the appellants hadpreferred the revision application before the High Court, which has beendismissed vide the impugned order.

6) This Court at the request of ld. counsel for the parties hadreferred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploringthe possibility of settlement, however, the same having failed, this Courthad passed the following order on 17.08.2022:-

“It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for theparties that the efforts for settlement have not fructified.Hence, we have commenced hearing of the matter.

During the course of submissions, learned counselfor the petitioners has made pertinent point that therespondent-husband indeed leveled allegation of thepersonal nature against the petitioner No. 1 questioningher chastity, particularly with reference to the birth of theson and therefore, she cannot be said to be unjustified inliving separate.

We have taken note of the submissions so made andhave posed the question to the learned counsel forrespondent that prima facie the petitioner No. 1 appears tobe justified in living separately and if that be so, herentitlement to claim maintenance cannot be ignored.

Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time tocomplete his instructions as also to advice the respondentappropriately.

Time, as prayed for, is allowed.”

7) The Court thereafter had heard the learned counsel for theparties, as also the respondent who was present in person in the Courton 16.09.2022.

A8) The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submittedthat the High Court had passed the impugned order in very perfunctorymanner without appreciating the conduct of the respondent during theproceedings before the Family Court. He submitted that the version ofthe appellant-wife, who had stepped into the witness box, as also theversion of the other witnesses examined by her had remainedBunchallenged, as the Family Court had closed the right of the respondentto cross-examine the witnesses and, therefore, there was no reason forthe Family Court not to believe the version of the appellant-wife whichwas stated by her on oath. However, the Family Court accepted all theoral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, without thereCbeing any evidence on record adduced by the respondent, and disallowedthe Maintenance application qua the appellant-wife, and the High Courtalso erroneously confirmed the said order passed by the Family Court.The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that theappellant-wife had left the matrimonial home along with the childrenwithout any justifiable reason and had failed to prove that she was unableDto maintain herself. He further submitted that though the respondent hasa party plot, the same having been closed, he has no source of income.According to him, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the twocourts, should not be interfered by this Court.

9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. wasEconceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of awoman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that somesuitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herselfand the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh1vs. Meena & Ors.. This Court in the said case, after referring to theFearlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how theproceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court.It held as under:

“In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 :1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631,Gpara 16)

16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], itmust be remembered, are of summary nature and areintended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter

H1 (2015) 6 SCC 353

whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to getmaintenance in speedy manner.”

8. three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy(K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], whilediscussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 ofthe Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ismeant to achieve social purpose. The object is toprevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedyremedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter tothe deserted wife.”

9. two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State ofGujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762] , whileadverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 ofthe Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

15. “… While dealing with the ambit and scope of theprovision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has tobe borne in mind that the dominant and primary objectis to give social justice to the woman, child and infirmparents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy bycompelling those who can support those who are unableto support themselves but have moral claim for support.The provisions in Section 125 provide speedy remedyto those women, children and destitute parents who arein distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intendedto achieve this special purpose. The dominant purposebehind the benevolent provisions contained in Section125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should notbe left in helpless state of distress, destitution andstarvation.”

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating thelegal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

6. “… Section 125 CrPC is measure of social justiceand is specially enacted to protect women and childrenand as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander

916SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AKaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC(Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Itis meant to achieve social purpose. The object is toprevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedyremedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter toBthe deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rightsand natural duties of man to maintain his wife, childrenand parents when they are unable to maintainthemselves. The aforesaid position was highlightedin Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005)C3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .”

11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma[(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1SCC (Civ) 346] , it has been stated that it is piece ofsocial legislation which provides for summary andDspeedy relief by way of maintenance to wife who isunable to maintain herself and her children”.

10) This Court had made the above observations as the Court feltthat the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedingswithout being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of theEprovisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has alsobeen gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court haddisregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of thehusband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he isan able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legallyFpermissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, SitaBai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is notto punish person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy anddestitution of deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelterby speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is aGmeasure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women andchildren. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

11) The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-lookedand disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceededH2 (2008) 2 SCC 316

with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact thatthe right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of theappellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear beforethe Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly establishedthat he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for theCourt or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in herevidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore,there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, andto believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearingfor the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence onrecord adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced bythe appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believingthe oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She hadclearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty bythe respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial homealong with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed andneglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved byproducing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money tothe respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business.Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were notbelieved, there was enough evidence to believe that money was beingpaid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, whichsubstantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding moneyfrom her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errantrespondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity allegingthat Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record tosubstantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA testwas also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Courtgranted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no.2-son wasconcerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not grantingthe maintenance to the appellant-wife.

12) Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court wasunfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing very perfunctoryimpugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passedthe impugned order in very casual manner. This Court would haveremanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh,however considering the fact that the matter has been pending beforethis Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would furtherdelay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.

A13) Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counselfor the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no sourceof income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neitherimpressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondentbeing an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means andmaintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence ofBthe appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to theother evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding thatthough the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Consideringthe totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grantCmaintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife,over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted bythe Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.14) It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall paymaintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wifeDfrom the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the FamilyCourt. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondentin the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting theamount, if any, already paid or deposited by him.

15) The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.