Delhi High Court: In a petition filed to challenge the order dated 19-09-2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II (‘ASJ’), Saket Courts wherein the order dated 21-12-2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Saket which fixed maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner (husband) to the respondent (wife) was upheld, a Single Judge Bench of Subramonium Prasad, J. found the orders passed by the courts to be well reasoned and did not find any reason to interfere with the same.
Background
In the present matter, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 03-03-1998 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently, two children were born in the wedlock.
The wife submitted that the husband used to return home late at night and used to abuse her physically, mentally, and verbally. After noticing change in the attitude of the husband, the wife inquired and found that the husband was having an extra-marital affair with another lady.
It was submitted that in March, 2010, the husband brought the lady to his house and introduced her to his parents and when the wife objected to her husband’s affair, the husband stopped coming to the house. It was also contended that the parents of the husband supported him and threatened the wife not to take any action against the husband else he would stop the financial support that he was providing to her and the kids.
The wife came to know that the husband got married to the lady and also, had a daughter. Having no other option, the wife had to leave her matrimonial house.
In the complaint, the wife said that the monthly income of the husband from his business was around Rs, 2,50,000/- and that he owned two cars and one flat in Noida and was maintaining several bank accounts. It was also mentioned that he owned a warehouse and that he was a member of the Noida Golf Club, yearly membership of which was Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The wife said that she was unemployed and that her father had passed away while her mother was aged and had no financial support. In February, 2023, the wife was employed at a salary of Rs. 15,100/- which lasted only for a month due to her lack of experience and education.
The Trial Court concluded that the husband was not maintaining the wife and directed him to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards injuries including mental torture, depression, and emotional distress that had been sustained by her. The husband was also directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the wife as compensation, including Rs. 30,000/- as litigation costs.
The husband filed an appeal before the ASJ wherein he submitted that the wife had married some other man. The husband also stated that the wife was an able-bodied lady and she could not be allowed to become a parasite on him by misusing the law. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that the Supreme Court had consistently upheld that the conceptualization of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home and to secure the woman’s sustenance along with that of the children.
The Court perused various case laws and stated that the law laid down by the Supreme Court would indicate that the proceedings under Section 125 had been enacted to reduce the financial sufferings of a lady, who was forced to leave her matrimonial house and that it was the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children.
The Court said that the husband had not provided any material in the present petition that would shock the concurrent findings of the courts. It was also said that the facts in the present matter make the wife a victim of domestic violence and the husband’s contention that the complaint filed does not come within the four corners of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), could not be accepted.
The Court said that because the wife was not in a position to take care of her two children, she had no option but to leave them with her in-laws and no fault could be found with this action taken by her.
Considering the financial status of the husband and taking judicial notice of the cost of living, the Court opined that the maintenance amounting to Rs. 30,000/- per month awarded by the Trial Court did not require any interference and stated that the fact that the wife was capable of earning could not lead to her detriment.
The Court said that the financial and asset profile of the husband reflected a comfortable and affluent lifestyle and therefore, was in a position to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance.
Further, the Court stated that even if the wife was able-bodied and could earn a livelihood, it does not absolve the husband from providing maintenance to his wife and children. It was said that Indian women leave their jobs to look after their families and the husband’s contention stating that the wife was only a parasite was nothing but an insult not only to the wife but to the entire women kind.
Lastly, the Court said that it did not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the courts earlier and dismissed the petition.
[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6509, Decided on 10-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
For Respondent — None
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023