High Court of Delhi

Jitendra Kumar Garg Vs. Manju Garg

MANU/DE/1351/2022

26.04.2022

Family

Unless orders are perverse and have been passed on nil evidence, High Court must be slow in interfering in the decisions of the Courts below

Present petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging Order wherein the Learned Judge, Family Courts, directed the Petitioner/Husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month to the Respondent/Wife with effect from the date of filing the petition.

Section 125 of CrPC is a provision that has been enacted to ensure that women and children are provided maintenance by the husband so as to protect them from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that, the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman's sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that, if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.

While adjudicating upon a matter of maintenance, it is important for the Courts to bear in mind that the same was enumerated to further the cause of social justice and that the interpretation of this Section should be done in a manner to prevent a situation wherein the wife or children are inadvertently nudged into vagrancy and destitution. It is meant to provide a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.

Furthermore, the scope of interference in a revision petition under Sections 397/401 of CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC is narrow and can only be done if a situation arises wherein the impugned Order is replete with legal infirmities and is unconscionable to the rule of law.

The maintenance which has been awarded vide the impugned Order is in the form of interim maintenance. Judicial discipline, therefore, circumspects this Court from interfering in an Order rendered by the Courts below and only justifies interference, if the Order is egregious in nature and suffers from legal perversity. It is well settled that unless the said Orders are perverse and have been passed on nil evidence, the High Court must be slow in interfering in the decisions of the Courts below.

The impugned Order passed by the Learned Family Court is well-reasoned and does not betray any legal infirmity. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason that would warrant interference in the Order passed by the Learned Family Court. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Interim maintenance Direction Legality

Share :