Excuse of fund crunch not valid: Gauhati High Court

 Non-payment of maintenance cost by husband

 STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a husband is not discharged from personal liability to maintain his wife and children on the ground that he lacks the means to pay maintenance costs.

A single-judge Bench of the High Court made this ruling while dismissing an appeal made by a man who was earlier ordered by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Dhubri, to pay maintenance costs of Rs 3,000 per month to his estranged wife and Rs 2,000 per month to his young daughter.

The lower court's directive for payment of maintenance cost, which was challenged in the High Court by the husband in question, had came after the complainant wife had submitted that she had got married under Muslim Shariat law. However, due to her inability to fulfil a dowry demand of Rs 1 lakh made by her husband and in-laws, she was physically tortured and eventually driven out of the marital home after a daughter was born to her. She was then forced to take refuge in her parents' house.

During hearing of the appeal in the High Court, the husband contended that he was a daily-wage earner with a monthly income of about Rs 4,000 and also had the responsibility of looking after his parents, brother and sister. As such, the appellant said, he was unable to pay maintenance costs to his wife and daughter. However, the wife contended that her husband is a businessman and has sufficient landed property and other sources of income from which he earns around Rs 30,000 per month and, hence, he is in a position to pay maintenance costs of Rs 5,000 per month for herself and her school-going daughter.

The High Court Bench observed: "In every petition, generally, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, or he does not have a job or his business is not doing well... Regarding such pleas, the judicial response has been always very clear that it is the personal liability of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter. The husband is not discharged from this liability on such grounds…It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to give reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him".

The Bench further observed: "Section 125 CrPC has been enacted to achieve a social object and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and to provide speedy remedy to deserted or divorced wife, minor children and infirm parents in term of food, clothing and shelter and minimum needs of one's life... I find that the view and approach of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri is completely justified and legal and there is no material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order… Hence, the revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed"

Also Read:   Gauhati High Court directs inspection of POCSO courts' infrastructure

Also Watch: