The Supreme Court recently observed that an able-bodied husband is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and minor child.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and cannot avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute,
In this case, the Family Court dismissed the Maintenance Petition filed by a wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. maintenance though it allowed maintenance for the minor child. The woman then filed a revision petition filed against this order which was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The respondent husband said that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home along with the children without any justifiable reason and had failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself.
The court said, “This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai , it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”
The court also rejected the contention of the husband that he himself has no source of income as his party business has now been closed.
In this regards, the court said, “The respondent being an ablebodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants.
The court therefore granted maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the minor-son.”
Case title: Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg
