Interim maintenance cannot be denied on ground that wife is capable of earning: Delhi HC

Read Judgment: COL RAMNESH PAL SINGH vs. SUGANDHI AGGARWAL 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 30, 2021: The Delhi High Court has opined that the fact that the wife is capable of earning is no ground to deny interim maintenance to her, since many a times wives sacrifice their career only for the family. 

The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her for the food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Army Order would over-ride the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C and that the Army personnel are covered only by the Army Order and that Section 125 Cr.P.C would not apply to Army Personnel, added the Single Judge. 

The observation came pursuant to a revision petition filed by COL RAMNESH PAL SINGH (Petitioner – husband), challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.33,500 to SUGANDHI AGGARWAL (Respondent – Wife), contending that such order for maintenance resulted from suppression of facts by the Respondent and she should be refused such benefit alleging her involvement in adultery with one of army officer.

The Petitioner also challenged the maintenance order contending that the Respondent was previously employed as a teacher and was making a living.

After considering the submissions, the High Court found from the material on record that the children are with the petitioner from 2015 and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to two shares. 

The respondent is, therefore, entitled to only one share which comes to Rs.20,615.7/- less Rs.6,000/- which is the salary of the respondent per month, and hence, the Trial Court ought to have granted only Rs.14,615/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent, added the Court.

At the same time, Justice Prasad said that the contention of the petitioner that he is covered by the Army Order 02/2001 and therefore the order passed by the Trial Court, fixing maintenance is contrary to the Army Order 02/2001 does not hold water. 

“The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C are in addition to other provisions which provide for maintenance. However, the amount given u/s 125 Cr.P.C is always taken into account before fixing maintenance in other proceedings like the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, proceedings u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act”, observed the Single Judge. 

The High Court went on to reiterate that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to bring down the agony and financial suffering of a women who left her matrimonial home so that some arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and her child. 

Justice Prasad therefore, partly allowed the revision petition and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,615/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent. 

However, if it is conclusively proved that the respondent was living in adultery and was not entitled to maintenance at all, the, the Trial Court can pass appropriate order for return of the maintenance amount if it deems it fit, keeping in mind that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, added the Single Judge.