The Supreme Court recently held that any man who is physically strong as husband cannot shirk from his responsibility saying he has no source of income and is duty-bound to maintain his wife and minor child even by doing physical labour.
A division bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M Trivedi were of the view that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.
The Court said that it is the duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.
It further said that to do his duty, he should be ready to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
Supreme Court was hearing an appeal which challenged decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld a family court’s decision to reject the maintenance plea filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), however granting maintenance to the minor child.
The appellant-wife argued that the High Court had passed the order in a very perfunctory manner without appreciating the conduct of the respondent-husband during the proceedings before the Family Court.
The appellant also mentioned that due to the conduct of the husband the right to cross-examine the witness was also struck-off by the family court.
The respondent-husband argued that the 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.
He further submitted that though he has a party plot, the same was closed, he has no other source of income.
The Court said that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to lessen the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children.
The apex court disagreed with the family court, noting that it had conducted the proceedings without the spirit of Section 125.
The Apex Court said that 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.
The Court also rejected the point by husband that he has no source of regular income as his party business has now been closed.
The Court said that the respondent being an able-bodied,and so is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child.
The Court also said that with the evidence provided by the wife, it can be held that the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied too.The court also noted that the man had failed to discharge his duty
The Court, has granted maintenance allowance of ₹10,000 per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of ₹6,000 granted by the Family Court to the minor son.