In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a husband’s petition challenging an order directing him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. The case, titled R/Special Criminal Application No. 353 of 2015, was presided over by Justice Divyesh A. Joshi. The court upheld the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that the maintenance granted was just, reasonable, and aligned with the principles of social justice.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a husband, had challenged the order dated December 17, 2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 198/2013. The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, along with a one-time application cost of Rs. 1,000. The couple had been married since December 9, 2001, and the wife had left the matrimonial home in 2009. Following this, she filed for maintenance, citing mental and physical harassment.
The petitioner argued that the Family Court had erred in its judgment by not properly considering his income and other liabilities. He further claimed that his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that he had made efforts to bring her back. The husband’s counsel, Mr. Pruthviraj Solanki, argued that the wife was educated and capable of maintaining herself, and thus, the maintenance order should be quashed.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issue in this case was whether the wife, who had allegedly deserted the matrimonial home, was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The husband’s counsel relied heavily on Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which states that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery, if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, Mr. Kuldeep D. Vaidya, argued that the wife was forced to leave due to mental and physical harassment. He maintained that the Family Court’s order was based on a thorough examination of evidence and that the awarded maintenance was crucial for the wife’s survival. The State’s counsel, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, also supported the respondent’s case, emphasizing that the Family Court had considered all relevant aspects, including the husband’s income, before passing the order.
Court’s Observations and Decision
In his judgment, Justice Joshi meticulously analyzed the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. He observed that the maintenance provision under Section 125 of the CrPC is designed to prevent destitution and to ensure that individuals who are legally obligated to provide support do so. He cited the Supreme Court’s observation in Chaturbhai vs. Sita Bai (2008), which stressed that Section 125 is a measure of social justice aimed at protecting women and children.
The court rejected the husband’s argument that the wife was not entitled to maintenance due to her alleged desertion. Justice Joshi noted that the wife had left the matrimonial home due to harassment and was, therefore, justified in seeking maintenance. He further noted that the husband’s claim of insufficient income was unsubstantiated, as the evidence presented suggested that he earned between Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 30,000 per month. The court found no merit in the husband’s petition, stating that his arguments were “bald excuses” and lacked legal acceptability.
Justice Joshi emphasized that the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife was an “absolute right” under Section 125, CrPC, unless disqualified. He referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021), which reinforced the husband’s duty to provide financial support to his wife and children, especially when they are unable to support themselves.
Conclusion
In light of the above observations, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and upheld the Family Court’s maintenance order. The court’s decision underscores the importance of maintenance as a tool of social justice, ensuring that deserted wives are not left destitute and that their basic needs are met.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Title: R/Special Criminal Application No. 353 of 2015
– Bench: Justice Divyesh A. Joshi
– Parties: Petitioner – Husband; Respondent – Wife
– Lawyers: Mr. Pruthviraj Solanki for the petitioner, Mr. Kuldeep D. Vaidya for the respondent, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, APP for the State
