Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the denial of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to a wife, holding that the Family Court's reasons (that a second marriage rules out a dowry demand, and that the wife admitted fault in a compromise deed which recorded no such admission) were conjectural and contrary to the record; it awarded her Rs. 4,000 a month and made all maintenance payable from the date of application. In a postscript it reiterated that 'Court of Kazi', 'Darul Qaza' or 'Sharia Court' decisions have no recognition in law.
Issues
- Whether the wife was rightly denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the finding that she was living separately without sufficient reason.
- Whether a court may presume that there can be no dowry demand in a second marriage of both parties.
- From which date maintenance under Section 125(2) CrPC should be payable: the date of the order or of the application.
- What legal status decisions of bodies styled 'Court of Kazi', 'Darul Qaza' or 'Sharia Court' have.
Provisions considered
- Section 125(1) and (4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The courts below refused the wife maintenance as living apart without sufficient reason. The Supreme Court found the grounds for that finding unsustainable on the record and, considering the husband's admitted salary, held maintenance could not be denied; it treated the section as beneficial legislation against destitution. (¶¶ 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 125(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Though the court may award maintenance from the date of the order, that choice must be justified on the facts and should not cause hardship; following Rajnesh v. Neha, maintenance for the wife and children was made payable from the date of application. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Section 125(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Maintenance for a minor child; having regard to the scheme of the section, the daughter's maintenance was held payable only until she attained majority. (¶ 18)
Held
- The Family Court's view that a second marriage of both parties rules out any dowry demand, because the husband would be trying to rehabilitate his home, is unknown to law and rests on conjecture and surmise; courts should not presume such matters or sermonise on morality. (¶ 14)
- A finding that the wife's conduct caused the rift, based on a supposed admission of fault in a compromise deed, cannot stand when the deed records no such admission and shows only that both parties agreed to live together; the High Court, which merely approved the Family Court's findings, erred likewise. (¶ 15)
- Given the husband's admitted income as a Border Security Force employee in 2008-2009 and the passage of time, maintenance could not be denied to the wife. (¶ 16)
- Section 125 CrPC is beneficial legislation to protect wives and children from destitution; ordinarily the applicant should not be disadvantaged by delay in disposal, and maintenance should run from the date of application. The law stated in Rajnesh v. Neha applies even though it was decided after the orders under challenge. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Bodies styled 'Court of Kazi', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat', 'Sharia Court' and the like, by whatever name, have no recognition in law; their declarations bind no one and cannot be enforced by coercive means. Such a decision can stand only where the affected parties accept or act on it and it does not conflict with any other law, and even then it binds only those parties and not third parties. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal disposed of; orders of the Family Court and the High Court set aside; the husband directed to pay the wife Rs. 4,000 per month from the date of the maintenance petition, the children's maintenance also made payable from that date (the daughter's only until majority), with arrears, after adjusting payments, to be deposited in the Family Court within four months; no costs.