Delhi High Court: In a maintenance matter, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, if a husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities
A petition was filed challenging the order wherein the Family Courts directed the petitioner/husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month to the respondent/wife.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Section 125 CrPC was enacted to ensure that women and children are provided maintenance by the husband so as to protect them from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution.
Supreme Court had consistently upheld that the conceptualization of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman’s sustenance, along with that of the children, if any.
“…if a husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.”
The underlying purpose and social context of Section 125 CrPC was examined by the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353.
Hence, the Court expressed that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to provide a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
With regard to interfering with the order of the Courts below, the Bench stated that,
Judicial discipline, circumspect this Court from interfering in an Order rendered by the Courts below and only justifies interference if the Order is egregious in nature and suffers from legal perversity.
Bench found the impugned order passed by the Family Court to be well reasoned, hence it did not warrant any interference. [Jitendra Kumar Garg v. Manju Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1180, decided on 26-4-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Rajinder Mathur and Akshat Singhal, Advocates
For the Respondent:
None