Bombay High Court: The applicant challenged the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad (‘the Trial Court’) wherein the application for cancellation of maintenance was rejected. Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J., opined that the trial court had rightly concluded and enhanced a just and reasonable amount of maintenance to the respondents. The Court held that the District Courts were expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that the weaker sections of the society would get their maintenance amount expeditiously.
Background
The applicant-husband and Respondent 1-wife married in 1998 and later the respondents filed an application for the grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the (‘CrPC’). Respondent 1 and Respondent 2-son got Rs 1500 and Rs 2000 per month, respectively as maintenance. The husband contended that his wife was in private employment and was earning around Rs 12,000 to Rs 15,000 per month and she had obtained the order of maintenance by suppressing this fact. The husband, therefore, prayed to cancel the order granting maintenance. The wife submitted that she had no alternative than to claim enhanced maintenance up to Rs 20,000 as she required more amount for his son’s educational expenses and thus, she prayed to reject the application for cancellation of maintenance.
The trial court held that the husband failed to prove change in the circumstances for allowing his application for alteration/cancellation of maintenance and the respondents succeeded in proving change in circumstances for enhancement of maintenance amount. The trial court enhanced the maintenance amount by Rs 1000 and Rs 1500 per month for the wife and the son, respectively.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the main objection of the husband was that his wife fabricated false documents and she was working in Amoli Services, Aurangabad by using the false name as Shalini Prakash Dheple. The Court took note of the election identity card of the wife, wherein her name was mentioned as Shalini Prakash Dheple and her name was changed after marriage when she was residing with her husband. Therefore, the Court opined that the objections of the husband that his wife was using different names and that she fabricated false documents was not acceptable.
The Court opined that Rs 1,500 and Rs 2,000 were meagre amounts, and it was not possible for the respondents to maintain themselves out of it. Therefore, merely because the wife was doing a job in a private company, the husband who was able bodied husband and father, could not be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance.
The Court also opined that the proceeding under Section of was a summary proceeding and, on this ground, suppressing material fact did not extinguish the right of maintenance. It was not an equitable relief which disentitled the people who were not coming before the Court with clean hands.
The Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, , and opined that though the wife had not disclosed the fact that she was earning some amount by doing a job, she could not be held liable for giving false evidence under Section of . If such a course was adopted, then it had to be adopted against husband and wife in every case, who were concealing such fact and showing that they were not having a source of income.
The Court opined that the trial court had rightly concluded and enhanced a just and reasonable amount of maintenance to the respondents. The Court held that there was no perversity and impropriety in the impugned judgments, therefore, no interference was warranted therein. The Court held that the present revision application deserved to be dismissed with costs of Rs 5,000 with 9% per month interest as the respondents must have incurred some amount for contesting the present application.
The Court stated that the trial Courts were not awarding interest on the maintenance amount though there was no legal ban to award interest on that amount of maintenance. The Court opined that the husbands or fathers were many times not depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together and they have no fear or burden to pay the interest on that amount of maintenance. It was a serious legal mischief.
The Court thus held that the District Courts were expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that the weaker sections of the society would get their maintenance amount expeditiously. It would serve the purpose of speedy justice. Thus, to secure their rights fully, effectively and speedily, which was an object of justice, interest must be awarded which was rationally expected. Their amount of maintenance shall not remain in the hands of the other side which deprived them for maximum period from it. Thus, it was now mandatory to award interest on the amount of maintenance.
[Prakash v. Vithabai, Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2023, decided on 10-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Party-in-person
For the Respondents: Advocate Jadhav Madhav K
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The post appeared first on .