Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14935 of 2021 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar @ Deep Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Krishan Mohan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.11.2015 passed by Principal Judge Family Court in Case No. 457 of 2013 (Smt. Archana Gautam Vs. Arvind alias Deep Chandra ) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Akbarpur District- Kanpur Dehat as well as order dated 14.12. 2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 106 of 2016 (Smt. Archana Gautam Vs. Arvind alias Deep Chandra) under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has also been made.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that without granting opportunity of hearing to the applicant the Court below has passed the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 17.11.2015 directing him to pay Rs. 2500/- to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance and thereafter issued the recovery and arrest warrant dated 14.12.2018. Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eye of law.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the applicant, who is an employee in the office of Tehsildar Tehsil Sadar, Kanpur Nagar and he is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702 has observed as under:-
It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned orders are just, proper and legal and do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, prayer made in the present application is refused.
However, it is provided that the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the arrears of maintenance to opposite party no.2 within one month from today and remaining amount of arrears shall be paid by him in three equal installments within three consecutive months starting from 1st of December, 2021. The monthly maintenance amount shall also be paid regularly by the applicant.
In order to comply with the order, for a period of four months the recovery as well as arrest warrant dated 14.12.2018 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case compliance of the order is not made by the applicant, the Court below shall proceed in the matter.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the competent Court is to act in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.10.2021/S.Verma