Facts of the case:
Kamla Devi (Respondent No. 1) was married, following the Hindu rituals, to Bhagwan Dutt, the appellant, on November 22, 1957. Respondent No. 2 was the daughter of Kamla Devi and Bhagwan Dutt, born on November 22, 1957. On October 18, 1966, Kamla Devi filed a petition against her husband for judicial separation on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. While her petition for judicial separation was still going on, she decided to file all applications mentioned in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in the court of 1st Class Magistrate to claim maintenance for herself as well as her minor daughter.
Respondent No. 1, Kamla Devi, argued that she should get maintenance for her and daughter because the appellant had failed to perform his duties as a husband and a father and downright refused to maintain them. During the time of applying, the mother was employed as a stenographer, earning Rs 600 as her monthly salary. Her husband, the appellant, was also employed that time, making a monthly salary of Rs. 800.
However, as the case passed on to the Sessions Court for revision, their monthly income increased. When the case was going on in the Session Court, each of their monthly payment was approximately increased by Rs. 1501. On June 6, 1969, the Magistrate, 1st Class, ordered the husband to pay Rs. 250 per month. Out of this amount, Rs. 175 was ordered to go for the wife’s maintenance, whereas the remaining 75 Rupees would go to their daughter. The Magistrate completely disregarded the fact the wife had an independent income.
The husband decided to go for revision to the Court of Session. The Additional Sessions Judge decided to go against the Magistrate’s decision and ruled that the wife’s income was “substantial” and “enough to maintain herself.”He further stated that the amount reserved for the child was insufficient, raising it to Rs. 125 per month. This amount was further raised to Rs. 150 per month at the end of the trial. According to the opinion of the respected Additional Sessions Judge, the wife should not be eligible to receive maintenance from her husband.
He referred this case to the High Court under Section 438 of CrPc, with the recommendation that the Judgement passed by the Magistrate regarding the maintenance of the wife should be quashed whereas the amount given to the child should be increased.
A single Judge of the High Court, who was hearing the case, held that in “making an order for maintenance in favor of a wife under Section 488 of CrPc the court has not taken into consideration the personal income of the wife as Section 488 does not contemplate such a thing.” Therefore, he denied the recommendation made by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the maintenance of the wife, but he accepted the suggestion of increasing the daughter’s maintenance. The husband was aggrieved by the Judgement given by the High Court, which was why he further appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues of the Case
Whether the wife’s independent income should be taken into consideration while determining the amount payable by the husband to maintain her and their child?
The Rule of Law
According to the Section 3(c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the word “maintenance” is defined as:
The amount of money that a husband pays to his wife who is unable to sustain herself, or his children, or his parents.
This section clearly illustrates that the husband is responsible for supporting his family after separation
- When the wife is unable to sustain herself on her own.
- When the proceedings of the divorce are going on.
This financial support can be paid by the husband monthly or in a lump sum. The concept of maintenance was initiated to put the wife back in a similar position of comfort and lifestyle as she was in her marriage. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is responsible for the provisions governing the rules related to the right of maintenance of a Hindu married woman.
Under this Act, the wife, the daughter-in-law, the children, the elderly parents, as well as the other dependents have a fair right to claim their maintenance.
In case of a divorce, the wife can file for maintenance. However, the issues before court arise when the wife earns enough to sustain herself financially. Indeed, the fact whether the woman is earning or not does not affect her right to claim maintenance, but it does affect the quantum of maintenance she will receive. In the case of Chaturbhuj V. Sitabai [1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that merely the fact that the wife earns some amount of money does not mean that she has lost her right to request maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPc. The question that needs to be answered is whether the amount she earns is enough to maintain and support herself.
Judgment
The Supreme Court of India held that the separate or independent income of the wife should also be considered while determining the amount of maintenance payable to her. Therefore, the Court passed the appeal and set aside the judgment delivered by the High Court. The Court decided to send the case back to the trial Magistrate to readjust the amount of maintenance.
Judgment Analysis
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The object of these (Section 125 and Section 126 mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure) provisions is to push a man to execute his moral commitments which he owes to the society in respect of his needy dependents so that they are not left wretched and impoverished on the scrap heap of the society thereby forced to a life of homelessness, immorality, and crime for subsistence.”
Therefore, the learned bench of Sarkaria and Ranjit Singh ruled that merely the fact that the wife is employed and making money does not mean that she has lost her right to attain maintenance. They also made a landmark decision by stating that Section 488 does not confer an absolute liability on the husband to support his wife in each and every circumstance.
The Judgement stated that there is the usage of the word “may” in Section 488(1), which means that the power given to the Magistrate is discretionary. This indicates that a neglected wife cannot implore her husband to pay her a specific amount of money in the name of maintenance. The Magistrate is free to exercise his power in an appropriate legal manner, depending on the circumstances of the case.
The judge of the High Court quoted Section 488 of CrPc as his reason for not quashing the decision of the Magistrate. This section states that:-
- “If any individual having adequate means abandons or declines to maintain his significant other or his lawful or unlawful child unfit to maintain itself, the District Magistrate, or a Presidency Magistrate, or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a first-class Magistrate of the Court of law may, upon evidence of such abandonment or denial, the Court of Law can instruct such individual to formulate a quarterly or weekly allotment for the sustentation of his wife or his any such child at the given monthly rate, but the amount should not be exceeding five hundred rupees as a whole or the amount that the respected Magistrate thinks appropriate, and moreover to reimburse the given amount to such individual as the respected Magistrate may direct from day to say.
- To (5) ….”
However, Section 125 of the new CrPc, 1973 states that:-
“ (1) If any individual having adequate means abandons or declines to maintain-
(a) his significant other who is not capable enough to sustain herself or
(b) his lawful or unlawful minor child (a child who is less than 18 years of age), it doesn’t matter if they are married or unmarried. If they’re unable to sustain themselves, the father has to help.
(c) his lawful or unlawful child (except a daughter who is already married) who has attained the age of majority but he is unable to sustain himself because of any mental or physical deformity
(d) his mother or even his father who are not capable enough to sustain themselves
If the proof of any such neglect or declination is produced in the Court of Law, a first class Magistrate has the power to demand such an individual to pay some amount every month as maintenance to his significant other, his minor child, his major child (who is physically or mentally disabled), his elderly mother and father. The amount should not exceed for more than five hundred rupees or the amount that seems appropriate to the first class Magistrate.”
After doing a comparative study of both the provisions, the judges concluded that the condition “unable to maintain itself” mentioned in Section 488 should only be applied to the child and not to the wife. In Section 125, this phrase or condition has been explicitly attached to the wife. Section 488 also uses the word “may,” which indicates that the husband is not under an absolute liability.
The Judges very expertly mentioned that one wrong assumption could very well lead to a wrong deduction. The mere fact that provision of Section 488(1) does not state explicitly that the condition of the wife to maintain herself can act as a precedent condition for her right to claim maintainability does not mean that the Magistrate is debarred from considering her independent source of income while deciding the amount of maintenance. There is nothing in the mentioned provisions that indicates the Magistrate to consider the husband’s income alone while deciding the amount and rate of maintenance.
Conclusion
This was the landmark case, which stated that the separate income of the wife could be taken into deliberation while calculating the amount of maintenance payable to her. The decision of the Supreme Court was carefully interpreted without making any wrongful assumption. They reiterated the fact that the concept of Section 488 is there for a social cause. It acts as machinery to enforce the obligations of a man towards his wife and his family. This is why the reverend Judges allowed the appeal, quashing the Judgement made by the High Court, and concluded to send the case back to the trial Magistrate to reset the amount of maintenance.
References:
[1] Chaturbhuj vs Sitabai, 2008 2 SCC 316
R S Sarkaria, Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi, Indiankanoon, (17 October, 1974),https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138019/
Vidhishala, BHAGWAN DUTT VS. KAMALA DEVI, Vidhishala, (17 October,1974),https://vidhishala1.wordpress.com/2020/10/13/bhagwan-dutt-vs-kamala-devi/
Ashok P. Wadje, Law of Maintenance in India, Slideshare, (October 21, 2016),https://www.slideshare.net/AshokWadje/law-of-maintenance-in-india
Shonee Kapoor, Income of Wife be Taken in Consideration While Determining Maintenance, Shonee Kapoor, (November 22, 2019), https://www.shoneekapoor.com/income-wife-factor-granting-maintenance/
%20483%5D){kind=link}
0 Comments