The Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi held 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."

Hearing an appeal filed by wife Anju Garg and her minor daughter against her husband against an order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby the High Court, as well as the Trial Court, had dismissed the maintenance filed by Original applicant No.1 wife and Original applicant No. 2 daughter under section 125 CRPC. Although the trial court had granted maintenance to the Original applicant no.3 minor son @ Rs. 6000/- per month till the age she attain majority.

It was argued by the appellant before the Supreme Court that the version of the appellant-wife, who had stepped into the witness box, as also the version of the other witnesses examined by her had remained unchallenged, as the Family Court had closed the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court not to believe the version of the appellant-wife which was stated by her on oath. However, the Family Court accepted all the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, without there being any evidence on record adduced by the respondent, and disallowed the Maintenance application qua the appellant-wife, and the High Court also erroneously confirmed the said order passed by the Family Court.

In opposition, it was argued by the husband that " the appellant-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 the respondent has a party plot, the same having been closed, he has no source of income. According to him, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts, should not be interfered by this Court.

Noting the requirement of a petition by wife and children under section 125 CRPC, the Apex Court observed that "At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate 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, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353.

The Apex Court took serious observations against the order of Family Court that "The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no.2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife. 

The Supreme Court also came heavily on the High Court and observed that "Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order."

The Apex Court passed an order "Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son."

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2022
ANJU GARG & ANR.      ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR GARG      ....RESPONDENT

Read the Complete judgment on the link below:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/43245/43245_2018_9_1501_38622_Judgement_28-Sep-2022.pdf