The Supreme Court recently in the case of Anju Garg & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg[1] observed that:
The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute[2].

While allowing the appeal, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi directed the respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant wife from the date of filing of Maintenance Petition before the Family Court and granted the minor son a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/-.

It was also observed that section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was formulated to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and her children as well.

The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy.

Maintenance under CrPC and Personal Laws

The Law for maintenance of wives, children and parents is provided under s. 125 of the CrPC. At the same time, the Law relating to maintenance for Hindus, Muslims and Christians is provided in their respective personal laws. The law of maintenance as given under s. 125 of CrPC is secular in nature and can be evoked by any person, irrespective of their religion.

Under the Hindu Personal Law, the maintenance of women is given under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the landmark judgment Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr[3], it was held that the second wife is also entitled to maintenance under the Section 125 of CrPC, under certain circumstances.

Under the Muslim Personal Law, the husband who has divorced his wife has to provide maintenance for her during the period of Iddat. Also s. 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 provides for the divorced Muslim women to opt to be ruled either by secular law under the CrPC, or the Muslim Personal Law.

In Abdul Latif Mondal v. Anuwara Khatun[4], a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has held that Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Act are available to a divorced Muslim woman in addition to claims available under S. 125, CrPC and an order of maintenance passed under Section 125, Cr. P.C. is not a nullity under the Act[5].

Hence, Muslim women can claim maintenance under the CrPC or the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Similarly, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, Indian Divorce Act, 1869 are some other Laws which provide for divorce. In Inter-faith marriages governed by the Special Marriage Act, 1954, maintenance is provided under Section 37 of the Act.

Analysis of Claim of Maintenance Under Criminal Procedure Code

Available for all neglected wives, discarded divorcees, abandoned children and hapless parents, belonging to any religion, community or having any domicile, who can lay hand [under section 126(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code 1973, if husband, father or son is found anywhere in India, the magistrate.

1st class, of the place has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code] on their husbands, fathers or sons the benevolent provision of section 125 which has the objective, as expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1979[6], "to ameliorate the economic condition of neglected wives and discarded divorcees"[7].

In 1882, James Fitz James Stephen, who piloted the Code of Criminal Procedure, spoke of section 488 of CrPC which was similar to the present section 125, the objective of the provision being "preventing vagrancy or at least of preventing its consequences."

Then the provision was looked upon as a legislative effort to prevent vagrancy or the consequences resulting from it. In 1963, Justice Subba Rao, noted that s. 488 was deliberated "to serve a social purpose."[8] In 1985, Chandrachud C.J. observed[9] that section 125 imposed on an individual obligation towards the society to maintain some of his close relations listed therein so as to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

According to sub-section (3) of section 125, a person is not obliged to pay maintenance to his wife, who on his invitation Co live with him refuses to do so without any just ground. Explanation to s. 125 provides that if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.

Explanation (b) to s. 125(1) of the code defines wife so as to include an un-remarried divorced wife. Under the old code 'wife' did not include a divorced wife, and the result was that a divorced wife was not entitled to maintenance.

Sub-section (4) of section 125 lays down that a wife shall not shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or in case she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or if by mutual consent, they are living separately.

Sub-section (5) of section 125 provides that:
On having proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery or if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason or that by mutual consent, they are living separately, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Judicial Precedents and Observations made in the Anju Garg Case
The appeal made to the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of revision petition by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the appellants challenged the order of the District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad, Haryana.

In the said order the Family Court had dismissed the Maintenance Petition filed by the appellant wife and her daughter under Section 125 of CrPC but granted maintenance to the minor son.

The Supreme court while pronouncing the judgment noted that, Section 125 of CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman facing cruelty or harassment who has left the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and her children, as observed in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors.[10].

The Family Court indeed disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children. Taking this canon of law in consideration, the Court opined that the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and he could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.

In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai[11], the object of maintenance proceedings is explained as not to punish a person for his past acts, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy.

Conclusion:
As settled by the Supreme Court, Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional ambit of Article 15(3), fortified by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that the appellant wife was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children and the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children while allowing the appeal. In the light of the above discussed case laws and reasoning of the Apex court, it is clear that the judgment in the Anju Garg case will protect the interests of thousands of women and children across India.

End-Notes:

1. Anju Garg & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg, Criminal Appeal No. 1693 Of 2022.
2. Id at 8.
3. Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr (2014) 1 SCC 188.
4. Abdul Latif Mondal v. Anuwara Khatun 2002 Cri LJ 2282.
5. S. Shakeela v. S. Khaleel, 2008 SCC OnLine AP 875.
6. Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli(1979) 2 SCC 316 : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 362
7. Claim of Maintenance Under Criminal Procedure Code, Paras Diwan, 27 JILI (1985) 291.
8. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1521 at 1525.
9. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
10. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors (2015) 6 SCC 353.
11. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316.

Also Read:

• Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.c
• Maintenance Under CRPC And A Comparative Study With Hindu Law And Muslim Law
• Maintenance of Divorced Women Under Muslim Personal Law
• Living In Adultery A Bar To Seek Maintenance under section 125 (4) of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973