Supreme Court Orders Maintenance for Wife After Husband Questions Chastity in Matrimonial Dispute: Anju Garg & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (28 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2022
Citation: [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) NO. 10353 OF 2018]
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi
Can a husband’s baseless allegations of infidelity and denial of paternity justify a wife’s separation and claim for maintenance? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a husband not only subjected his wife to cruelty but also questioned the legitimacy of their son. The bench, composed of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the husband’s duty to maintain his wife and children. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting women and children from financial distress.

Case Background

The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Anju Garg (appellant no. 1), her son Rachit Garg (appellant no. 2), and Deepak Kumar Garg (respondent). Anju and Deepak married on December 7, 1991, and had two children: a daughter, Megha Garg, born on October 10, 1992, and a son, Rachit Garg, born on April 11, 1999. Anju alleged that Deepak subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, demanding dowry, and ultimately forcing her to leave the matrimonial home in 2010 with her children. She claimed that Deepak failed to maintain them, leading her to file a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Deepak denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, and shockingly claimed that Rachit was not his biological son.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month to Anju and her children, excluding Megha, who had attained majority. Deepak’s application for a DNA test to dispute Rachit’s paternity was dismissed. Despite conditional warrants of arrest, Deepak failed to appear in court or pay interim maintenance, leading the Family Court to strike off his defense. The Family Court ultimately dismissed Anju’s maintenance petition, while granting Rs. 6,000 per month to Rachit. The High Court upheld this decision, prompting Anju to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referenced Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which aims to provide a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to a deserted wife. The court emphasized that this provision is meant to achieve a social purpose, prevent vagrancy and destitution, and ensure that women and children are not left in a helpless state. The Court also highlighted that the provision falls under the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which are intended to protect women and children.

The Court quoted the following from Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as follows:

“…Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.”

The Court further observed that:

“Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.”

The Court also noted that:

“While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”

The Court also highlighted that:

“Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellant-wife argued that the High Court had not properly considered the conduct of the respondent during the Family Court proceedings.
• She emphasized that her testimony and that of her witnesses remained unchallenged due to the respondent’s failure to cross-examine them.
• She contended that the Family Court should have believed her version of events, especially given the lack of evidence from the respondent.
• She highlighted the allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, and the respondent’s failure to maintain her and her children, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home.
• The appellant-wife also pointed out that the respondent had questioned her chastity by alleging that Rachit was not his biological son, which further justified her separation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason.
• He claimed that she had failed to prove her inability to maintain herself.
• He stated that, despite owning a party plot, he had no source of income as the business was closed.
• He urged the Supreme Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision application against the Family Court’s order that denied maintenance to the appellant-wife, despite the evidence of cruelty and the respondent’s failure to contest the allegations?

The sub-issue before the court was:

1. Whether the allegations of the respondent questioning the chastity of the appellant-wife justified her separation and claim for maintenance?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases to emphasize the purpose and scope of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. The court also considered the constitutional perspective of the provision.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to emphasize the purpose and scope of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that the provision is meant to achieve a social purpose, prevent vagrancy and destitution, and ensure that women and children are not left in a helpless state. The Court also emphasized that the husband has a sacrosanct duty to provide financial support to his wife and minor children.

• Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. [(2015) 6 SCC 353]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate 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.
• Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children to get maintenance in a speedy manner.
• Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is meant to achieve a social purpose, the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and it provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.
• Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the dominant and primary object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
• Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
• Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that Section 125 Cr.P.C. falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
• Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to achieve a social purpose, prevent vagrancy and destitution, and provide a speedy remedy for deserted wives.
• Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation that provides a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the perfunctory manner in which the Family Court and the High Court had dealt with the case. The Court emphasized that the Family Court had disregarded the basic principle that it is the husband’s duty to provide financial support to his wife and children. The Court also noted that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the unchallenged evidence of the appellant-wife and had instead relied on the oral submissions of the respondent’s counsel without any evidence. The Court was also disturbed by the respondent’s baseless allegations questioning the paternity of his son, which the Court viewed as a serious act of cruelty.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the unchallenged evidence of the wife and the baseless allegations of the husband. However, the Court also relied on established legal principles and precedents to support its decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court held that the Family Court and the High Court had erred in not granting maintenance to the appellant-wife. The Court found that the appellant-wife had provided sufficient evidence of cruelty and harassment, and that the respondent had failed to contest these allegations. The Court also emphasized that the respondent’s baseless allegations questioning the paternity of the son constituted a serious act of cruelty that justified the wife’s separation and claim for maintenance.

The Court stated:

“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 Court also observed:

“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 Court further stated:

“The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants.”

The Court also set aside the impugned order of the High Court and granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her maintenance petition before the Family Court.

Key Takeaways

• A husband’s baseless allegations of infidelity and denial of paternity can be considered as cruelty, justifying a wife’s separation and claim for maintenance.
• Family Courts must not disregard unchallenged evidence and must not rely on oral submissions of one party without evidence.
• Husbands have a legal and moral obligation to maintain their wives and children, and cannot avoid this obligation by claiming lack of income if they are able-bodied.
• Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children from destitution.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing her maintenance petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears was to be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, after adjusting any amount already paid or deposited.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a husband’s baseless allegations of infidelity and denial of paternity can be considered as cruelty, justifying a wife’s separation and claim for maintenance. This case reinforces the principle that Family Courts must not disregard unchallenged evidence and must not rely on oral submissions of one party without evidence. It also reaffirms the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife and children. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principle but reinforces the existing principles of law related to maintenance and cruelty in matrimonial disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg is a significant step towards ensuring that women and children are not left destitute due to the negligence of their husbands. The Court’s emphasis on the husband’s duty to maintain his family and the importance of considering unchallenged evidence highlights the judiciary’s commitment to social justice. The decision serves as a reminder that baseless allegations of infidelity and denial of paternity can be considered as cruelty, justifying a wife’s separation and claim for maintenance.