'S.125 CrPC Is Meant To Ameliorate Agony & Financial Suffering Of Woman'; Jharkhand High Court Flags Delay In Deciding Maintenance Case

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are summary in nature and are intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It also held that a wife is legally entitled to maintenance enabling her to live with dignity and in a manner similar to the standard of living she would have enjoyed in her matrimonial home. However, in the facts of the present case, the Court declined to enhance the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing cross-appeals filed by both the husband and the wife against an order of the Family Court, Ranchi, granting a consolidated maintenance of ₹24,000 per month to the wife.

Background:

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 27 June 1985 at Danapur, Patna, according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the husband had completed his MBBS and was undergoing internship, and subsequently completed his MD in Medicine. The wife completed her B.Ed. after marriage. Thereafter, both parties resided in Saudi Arabia for about six years. It was during this period that matrimonial discord arose between them.

According to the wife, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home in 2006, following repeated disputes and degrading remarks made by the husband. The wife contended that the husband is a well-known neuro-physician at Patna, running a clinic, and earns more than ₹3 lakh per month. She argued that the Family Court had failed to consider the husband's true income and properties and sought enhancement of maintenance to ₹60,000 per month.

The husband opposed the plea and submitted that he had already been directed to pay a lump sum permanent alimony of ₹20 lakh. He also pointed out that he had taken care of the education of both daughters and had borne the expenses of the marriage of the elder daughter.

The High Court observed that Section 125 of the CrPC was conceived to alleviate the financial suffering of a woman who is compelled to leave her matrimonial home and to ensure that she and her children are able to sustain themselves. The Court emphasised that sustenance does not mean mere survival, and that a wife is entitled in law to live in a manner comparable to the life she would have led in her husband's house. At the same time, the Court noted that proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are of a summary nature and are meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The Court also expressed concern over the delay in adjudication, noting that the maintenance petition filed in 2015 came to be decided only in 2023. The Court noted:

“It is strange, that a petition under section 125 Cr.PC was filed in the year 2015 which has been decided in the year 2023 which prima facie suggest that in the case in hand the proceeding before the learned Family Court was conducted without being alive to the objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act and the spirit of the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.”

The High Court held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife, and that such obligation subsists even if the husband is required to earn through physical labour, so long as he is able-bodied. The Court held:

“Section 125 Cr.PC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provisions so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basis maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into place, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity…”

The Court observed that there is no escape from this statutory obligation, unless a competent court holds that the wife is not entitled to maintenance on any legally permissible ground.

However, on the facts of the case, the High Court noted that it was an admitted position that the husband had maintained both daughters, had also solemnised the marriage of the elder daughter, and that the marriage of the younger daughter was still to be performed, for which further financial responsibility would arise. The Court further took note of the fact that the husband had already deposited a sum of ₹20 lakh towards permanent alimony, which had not been withdrawn by the wife.

In view of these circumstances, the High Court upheld the order of the Family Court and refused to enhance the maintenance amount.

Title: Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar

Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 1036 of 2023

Appearance: Mr. Nikhil Ranjan appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Achinto Sen appeared for the State. Mrs. Vani appeared for Opposite Party No. 2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order