Summary
A wife who left the matrimonial home with her children claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging cruelty and money demands. The husband denied paternity of their son, ignored warrants and did not pay interim maintenance, so his defence was struck off. Yet the Family Court refused the wife maintenance on his counsel's unsupported oral submissions, granting only the son Rs. 6,000 a month, and the High Court upheld that without reasons. The Supreme Court held that Section 125 is social-justice legislation under Articles 15(3) and 39, and that an able-bodied husband must maintain his wife and minor children, even by physical labour. Her unchallenged evidence and his baseless paternity charge justified her living apart. Rather than remand, the Court awarded her Rs. 10,000 a month from the date of the petition.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court could refuse maintenance to a wife whose evidence of cruelty and neglect stood unchallenged, relying only on her husband's counsel's oral submissions.
- Whether the husband's plea that his business had closed and he had no income relieved him of the duty to maintain his wife and minor son.
Provisions considered
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A summary remedy of social justice to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of wives and children. A husband who has sufficient means, or is able-bodied, and neglects to maintain them must pay. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13)
- Articles 15(3) and 39, Constitution of IndiaSection 125 falls within the constitutional sweep of special provision for women and children, reinforcing a husband's duty to support his wife and minor children. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Held
- It is the husband's sacred duty to support his wife and minor children. An able-bodied husband must earn, even by physical labour, and can avoid the obligation only on grounds the statute permits. (¶¶ 10, 13)
- The husband's defence was struck off for non-appearance and non-payment, and the wife's evidence of harassment, of her father's payments to him and of his baseless denial of paternity was unrebutted. Disbelieving her on counsel's unsupported submissions was perverse, and she was justified in living separately. (¶ 11)
- The High Court confirmed the order perfunctorily and without reasons. Given four years' pendency, this Court decided the claim instead of remanding. It rejected the plea of no income and awarded the wife Rs. 10,000 a month, in addition to the son's Rs. 6,000. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed. The respondent was directed to pay the wife Rs. 10,000 a month from the date of her maintenance petition, in addition to the son's maintenance, and to deposit the arrears in the Family Court within eight weeks after adjusting any amounts already paid.