Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24, 28 - Husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra.
The provision of grant of maintenance is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The matter is still pending before the learned Family Court and the parties will be free to lead their evidence before the learned Family Court at later stage, as at this stage, only maintenance has been granted to the respondent- wife by the Family Court.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
10/09/2018
D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4300/2018
Rinku @ Parmendra v. Avdesh
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed with delay of 5 days. Application No. 1945/2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by appellant Rinku @ Parmendra challenging order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Family Court, Bharatpur (for short 'the Family Court') whereby application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-wife has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. Further, amount of Rs. 2,500/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 700/- as travelling expenses on each date of hearing has been awarded to the respondent-wife.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Family Court failed to consider the fact the respondent was having affairs with one Rishiraj Singh Gurjar prior to marriage and after marriage she always went to her parental house and met him. The respondent herself did not want to live with the appellant therefore she started cruelty with the appellant and his family members. She is living with Rishiraj Singh as wife which is evident from the fact that the respondent got the sale deed of the property of her mother registered in her name wherein name of her husband has been mentioned as Rishiraj Singh. It is argued that the respondent has also cheated her mother and father by getting sale deed registered in her favour by giving false assurance in collusion with Rishiraj Singh. Therefore, father of the respondent lodged FIR No. 386/2016 against the respondent and Rishiraj Singh and others at Police Station Thatipur (Gwalior) for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. The Family Court has also not considered the fact that the respondent has herself deserted the appellant without any valid reason. FIR lodged against the appellant at Police Station Noorabad (Morena) M.P. for offence under Section 341, 323, 294, 506, 34 IPC had already been quashed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior vide order dated 17.07.2018. The respondent was having alternative remedy of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance but she had filed present application without availing alternative remedy. The appellant is presently unemployed and preparing for competitive examinations for government job and he is wholly dependent on his father. The respondent is a graduate lady and she is doing teaching work in a private school and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order passed by the Family Court, this court is of the view that the provision of grant of maintenance is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The matter is still pending before the learned Family Court and the parties will be free to lead their evidence before the learned Family Court at later stage, as at this stage, only maintenance has been granted to the respondent- wife by the Family Court. In our considered view and in the conclusion, we are inclined to observe that the appellant being husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra.
In view of above discussion, we find no illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the Family Court, warranting any interference by this Court.
The appeal is dismissed. However, the Family Court is directed to decide the main case within a period of six months from the date next fixed before it.
Stay Application No. 3419/2018 also stands dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment