Is the father not liable to provide maintenance to his son eighteen years old if the mother is earning?

 It is further pertinent to note that it is true that in majority of households, women are unable to work due to sociocultural as well as structural impediments, and, thus, cannot financially support themselves. However, in households wherein the women are working and are earning sufficiently to maintain themselves, it does not automatically mean that the husband is absolved of his responsibility to provide sustenance for his children. A father has an equal duty to provide for his children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising and educating the children.

10. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the reality that simply attaining

majority does not translate into the understanding that the major son is earning sufficiently. At the age of 18, it can be safely assumed that the son is either graduating from 12th standard or is in his first year of college. More often than not, it does not place him in a position wherein he can earn to sustain or maintain himself. It further places the entire burden on the mother to bear the expenses of educating the children without any contribution from the father, and this Court cannot countenance such a situation.

The context of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the wife and the children of the husband are not left in a state of destitution after the divorce. The husband must also carry the financial burden of making certain that his children are capable of attaining a position in society wherein they can sufficiently maintain themselves. The mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure on the education of her son just because he has completed 18 years of age, and the father cannot be absolved of all responsibilities to meet the education expenses of his son because the son may have attained the age of majority, but may not be financially independent and could be incapable of sustaining himself. A father is bound to compensate the wife who, after spending on children, may hardly be left with anything to maintain herself.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  IN THE MATTER OF:

  CRL. REV. P. 549/2018

 URVASHI AGGARWAL Vs  INDERPAUL AGGARWAL

 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD 

Dated : 5th OCTOBER, 2021

Print Page

Supreme court: While granting maintenance U/S 125 of CRPC, the court shall take into consideration interim maintenance given to wife under DV Act

 On the other hand, the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, have held that in case of parallel proceedings, adjustment or set-off must take place.

The Bombay High Court in a well-reasoned judgment delivered in Vishal v Aparna & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207. has taken the correct view. The Court was considering the issue whether interim monthly maintenance awarded under Section 23 r.w. Section 20 (1)(d) of the D.V. Act could be adjusted against the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court held that the order passed under the D.V. Act and the Cr.P.C. were both independent proceedings, and adjustment was not permissible. The Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and held that Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under this Act, would be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section  125 Cr.P.C., and any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the D.V. Act enjoins upon the aggrieved person to inform the Magistrate, if she has obtained any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, in any other legal proceeding filed by her, whether before a Civil Court, Family Court, or Criminal Court. The object being that while granting relief under the D.V. Act, the Magistrate shall take into account and consider if any similar relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person. Even though proceedings under the D.V. Act may be an independent proceeding, the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal proceedings, while determining whether over and above the maintenance already awarded, any further amount was required to be granted for reasons to be recorded in writing.

The Court observed :

“18. What I intend to emphasize is the fact that the adjustment is permissible and the adjustment can be allowed of the lower amount against the higher amount. Though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the different enactments, it does not in any way mean that the husband can be made liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said proceedings.”

(emphasis supplied)

It was held that while determining the quantum of maintenance awarded u/S.125 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would take into consideration the interim maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under the D.V. Act.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020

RAJNESH  Vs  NEHA & Anr

Dated: November 4, 2020.

Citation: MANU/SC/0833/2020 : (2021) 2 SCC 324

Print Page

Breach of monetary relief under Domestic violence Act-Procedure u/s 125 of crpc should be followed

 A perusal of Section 20 of the Act of 2005 reveals that exhaustive procedure for the execution of monetary relief has not been laid down in this Section because sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 20 provide the consequences to an order of monetary relief. Sub-Section (6) of Section 20 of the Act of 2005 entitles the Magistrate to direct the employer or debtor of the respondent to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of wages or salaries or debt due or accrued to the creditor of the respondent towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. However, this provision is limited to the person who may have accrued credit or is a salaried person, but in case of a self-employed person, this provision would be of no help to the claimant.

8. Resultantly, the Court would have to fall back-on to the procedure provided under Sec. 28 of the Act of 2005, which lays down that the Courts shall be governed by the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as well as for the offence under Sec. 31 of the Act of 2005. Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Act of 2005 provides for a procedure to be laid down by the Court on its own for the disposal of an application under Sec. 12 or sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Act of 2005. The procedure, which the learned Court below can adopt is limited to the disposal of the application, but for execution of the order, a resort has to be had to the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to execution of the order under Sec. 125Cr.P.C. have to be resorted to by the Court below for giving force to the order of monetary relief.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 123/2010

Decided On: 13.02.2012

Appellants: Kanchan (Smt.) Vs.  Vikramjeet Setiya

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Equivalent Citation: 2013CriLJ85, I(2013)DMC662, 2012(4)WLN210

Print Page