'Legal, Ethical Duty To Maintain Wife & Kids': Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband's 660-Day Jail Term Over Failure To Pay Maintenance

The Gujarat High Court upheld an order directing a husband to undergo imprisonment of 660 days for failing to pay maintenance to his wife and children, after noting that the husband had himself surrendered before the court stating that he was unable to pay the maintenance amount. In doing so the court said that it is the husband's legal and ethical duty to maintain his wife and provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk this responsibility. The husband had moved the high court challenging Family Court's order directing the husband to undergo simple imprisonment for 660 days for failing to pay maintenance to his wife.Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order noted:"It appears from the record that for recovery of the maintenance amount of Rs.3,97,000/-, a recovery application came to be filed as the applicant failed to comply with the order. Thereafter, the applicant voluntarily appeared before the learned Family Court and submitted an application requesting the Court to take up the matter on board on 18.01.2014. The applicant also submitted a separate application stating that he wanted to surrender before the Court as he was unable to pay the maintenance amount and requested the Court to impose a lesser sentence.Thereafter, the learned Court recorded the statement and verification of the applicant, wherein he admitted that he has to pay maintenance of Rs.3,97,000/- to his wife and children. He further admitted that he had received the notice but was unable to make the payment as he did not possess any movable or immovable property. He also stated that he was unable to maintain the respondents and was not ready and willing to pay the said amount. The applicant did not seek any further time for payment and straightway admitted his liability". The high court noted that the family court had explained to the husband that in case of failure to make payment, he would have to undergo sentence and after understanding the said consequences the petitioner had "affirmed his signature on 18.01.2014"."In the aforesaid background, the learned Family Court passed an order imposing ten days' simple imprisonment for default of each month's maintenance. Since the default pertained to 66 months, a total sentence of 660 days was imposed after granting the benefit of set-off. Considering the aforesaid facts, the sentence of ten days for each month of default cannot be said to be disproportionate. The applicant himself had surrendered and admitted his liability and inability to pay. Therefore, no irregularity has been committed by the learned Family Judge and no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction," the court said. It was the husband's case that marriage between him and his wife was solemnized on 03.03.2002 according to Hindu rites and rituals and they also had two children. According to the petitioner, initially the matrimonial life of the parties was cordial; however, with the passage of time, the wife started quarrelling with him and his family members on trivial issues. It was his case that, despite his efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship and provide all necessary facilities, the wife left the matrimonial home on 26.08.2007 and thereafter filed an application seeking maintenance. This application was partly allowed by the Family Court on 14.05.2013, whereby maintenance of Rs.2,500 per month was awarded to her, Rs.2,000 per month and Rs. 1500 per moth was awarded to the two children respectively, from the date of filing of the application, along with Rs.1,000 towards costs. Thereafter, the wife and the two children filed an application under Section 125(3) CrPC for recovery of arrears of maintenance, and by order 18.01.2014, the Family Court directed the husband to undergo simple imprisonment for 660 days. It was his case that he had been in judicial custody since the passing of the order. The high court observed that from various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as High Court, it can be said that the "husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children because it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them". It said:"It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father to maintain his legally wedded wife and children, which is his social and lawful duty towards them and the wife and children would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were enjoying while living with them...In the light of above-mentioned precedents, it appears that the impugned order deciding the application can not in any way affect the finality of the dispute between the parties. The applicant has failed to point out any patent error in the impugned order or any miscarriage of justice. Finding that family Court had assigned proper reasons while passing its order, the high court said that...

'Legal, Ethical Duty To Maintain Wife & Kids': Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband's 660-Day Jail Term Over Failure To Pay Maintenance

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

'Legal, Ethical Duty To Maintain Wife & Kids': Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband's 660-Day Jail Term Over Failure To Pay Maintenance

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers