Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1161 (RAJ)

Anand Mewara v. Madhu Mewara

2011-05-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife, and to pay another Rs. 1,000/- for the child Kumari Mahi, respondent No. 2, from the date of submission of the application i.e. from 15.6.2009, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Judge has ignored certain cardinal facts of the case, viz., that the petitioner and the respondent wife were living happily for five years. They separated their ways in 2008. The petitioner had filed the petition for divorce only then the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved. Therefore, the application under Section 125 was a counter-blast to the divorce petition. In similar way, the respondent wife had lodged criminal case for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Thus, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a motivated one. Secondly, that while the wife is an education person and according to her own testimony, she was working prior to the marriage, the husband happens to be a salesman at a liquor shop. Moreover, the petitioner is saddled with the responsibility to look after his family which includes not only his elderly parents, but also one sister who is divorced from her husband and has two children from her marriage. Thus, the petitioner is already overburdened with having to maintain at least five other persons excluding himself. Hence, it is not feasible for the petitioner to maintain the wife and the child. Lastly, that the learned Judge has directed that the maintenance shall be paid from the date of filling of the application, but without assigning any special reasons for doing so. According to the learned counsel, ordinarily maintenance should be paid from the date of the order unless special reasons are assigned by the Court. 3. Heard learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 4. Needless to say, the aim and object of Section 125 is to protect the socio-economic rights of the woman, who is provider of hearth and home, so that the basic until of the society is protected and promoted. 3. Heard learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 4. Needless to say, the aim and object of Section 125 is to protect the socio-economic rights of the woman, who is provider of hearth and home, so that the basic until of the society is protected and promoted. The law makes were well aware that in case the women were to become vagrant, on in case she taken to a wrong path in life, the whole family, and family as a unit, would fall. Therefore, the aim and object of Section 125 is to protect the woman financially and socially so that she is not reduced to being a easy pray to the male ego, and male avarice, and is no forced to take to the oldest profession of the world. 5. Keeping in mind the object of the provision it is no answer that an application under Section 125 has been filed as a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. Merely because the respondent wife has filed the application after one year of separation from the husband, it would not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. Moreover, having come to realise that the husband meant to permanently terminate the marriage, and being unable to maintain herself and child, the respondent wife had no other option but to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said application cannot be said to be motivated. 6. The economic inability to pay the maintenance due to responsibilities towards other family members is not a defense for an application under Section 125. After all, if the wife and child had stayed with the petitioner, even then he was duty bound to maintain them. Thus, he has moral and legal duty to look after the wife and the child. It is no ground that he is already overburdened with the responsibilities to look after other members of the family such as his parents and petitioner's sister and her children. 7. In the case of Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishum B. Pathak, AIR 2008 SC 3006 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already observed that while granting the maintenance from the date of filing of the application, no special reasons need to be given. 7. In the case of Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishum B. Pathak, AIR 2008 SC 3006 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already observed that while granting the maintenance from the date of filing of the application, no special reasons need to be given. After all, Court has to be conscious of the fact the woman, in an animated suspension, will find it difficult to maintain herself and child during the course of proceedings. Thus the learned Judge is certainly justified in directing that the maintenance be paid from the date of filing of the application. In fact, the Judges has been more than reasonable in directing that the arrears of maintenance should be paid in three equal installments. 8. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order; the revision petition being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******