Chandigarh
In an unprecedented and crucial direction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that social security does not require a judicial stamp to protect victims from harassment.
Turning a petition filed by Vijay Kumar, an Assistant Sub Inspector with the Punjab Police, on its head, Justice Surya Kant on Friday dismissed his petition whereby he had challenged an order passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab.
An order dated June 4, 2010 from DGP, Punjab, directed Kumar to pay 50 per cent of his salary directly to his wife and two school-going minor children.
Instead, the Court has directed a lower Court of Mohali, which is adjudicating a divorce petition filed by wife of Vijay Kumar, to “suo-motu and/or an application by the petitioner’s wife to determine the interim alimony which shall not be less than the aid given to her.”
“The petitioner’s wife complained that he had illegally re-married and was living with another woman, neglecting his legally wedded wife and their two minor children. The factum of the petitioner’s wife living separately along with their two minor children is admitted by the petitioner himself,” reads the order.
Justice Kant ruled that since the petitioner’s wife does not have any independent source of survival, she is admittedly a house wife, “The social security concept is not only for the sustenance of a victim-spouse but also to boost the morale of such victim with enough strength to fight the unequal legal battle waged by the dominating spouse,” reads the order.
Justice Kant ruled, “Whenever an alleged victimizer ex-facie holds a dominating position and the justice delivery system fails to provide timely assistance, the State authorities are equally obligated in deference to their commitment to provide interim measures of sustenance to victims subject to the approval of such action by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Survival of the petitioner’s wife and minor children, therefore, could not have been put to stake on the hyper-technical plea that they must get an order of maintenance from the Court of law.”
“The petitioner’s wife and their minor children are entitled to care even if allegations of cruelty or desertion are proved and a decree of divorce is passed in petitioner’s favour. The school going minor children need not wait a judicial verdict in this regard” the order further reads.
Holding that the order passed by DGP, Punjab “calls for no interference” Justice Kant ordered that there is no compulsion for a writ Court to set aside every illegal action unless it is found to be palpably in violation of Constitutional provisions.
“The Court, in that event, is directed to adjust the amount deducted in terms of the order dated June 4, 2010 passed by the DGP, Punjab towards interim maintenance determined under Sec 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, till the decision of the divorce petition” the Court has held.
