Siblings Have A Moral Duty To Assist Each Other At Time Of Need; Amount Spend By Brother To Help His Sister Will Have A Bearing On The Amount Of Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Date of judgement:
3.6.2022

Bench:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Parties:
Plaintiffs – SARITA BAKSHI
Respondent – STATE & ANR

SUBJECT

The Court, in this case, held that the siblings are expected to take care and assist each other at the time of need and a brother is morally obligated to help his divorced sister. Thus, the expenses incurred by the brother in supporting his sister needs to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of maintenance.

OVERVIEW

• The instant petition was filed in challenge to the order of maintenance delivered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, directing the respondent no. 2/husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6000 per month to the petitioner wife.
• The husband and the wife had been married in accordance with the Hindu rituals and a son was born to them out of the wedlock.
• Subsequently, disharmony developed in the relations between the parties and the wife filed for monthly allowance for maintenance of herself and her child from the husband under Section. 125 of CrPC.
• The Metropolitan Magistrate initially granted the order of payment of monthly allowance of Rs. 450 to the wife and Rs. 350 to the child for their maintenance.
• Subsequently, it was enhanced to 2,200 for both the wife and the son.
• On appeal under Section 127, the Metropolitan Magistrate enhanced to 6000 from the date of impugned order to the wife till her death or remarriage.
• The order of maintenance granted by the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

• The petitioner relied on the judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha; (2021) 2 SCC 324 to argue that the amount of maintenance must be payable from the date of application of the order of maintenance and not the date of order.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT

• The respondent contended that the Trial Court erred in ordering the maintenance from the date of the impugned order as an order of enhancement shall only be granted from the date of increase in husband's salary or income

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

• Whether the amount of maintenance was rightly determined?
• Whether the maintenance was payable from the date of application or from the date of change in income of husband?

RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Code of Criminal Procedure

• Section 125: Order for maintenance of wives, children and parent
• Section 127: Alternation in allowance

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

• The Court noted that the object of the Act is to protect the wife from any financial suffering.
• The aim of Section 125 is not to punish any party but rather to ensure social justice and that the wife enjoys the same status as that of her husband
• The two essentials of maintenance under Section 125 are

1. The husband must have refused/neglected to maintain his wife
2. The wife must be unable to maintain herself

• The Court relied on the case of Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi 1975 CriLJ 40, and held that where the wife is able to maintain herself at a standard in par with that of her marital family, she would not be entitled to maintenance.
• The Court further noted that Section 127 does not operate independently of Section 125 and only when an order of maintenance has been granted, can Section 127 be invoked.
• The objective of Section 127 is to ensure that the amount of maintenance is fairly altered in accordance with any change in the circumstances of the party receiving the maintenance or paying the maintenance.
• The change in "circumstances" is not confined to material circumstances but extends to change in other circumstances as well.
• The Court noted that the husband had a dependent father and a divorced sister.
• The Court noted that even if the sister was receiving maintenance from her divorced husband, the brother has a duty to look after his siblings and would not abandon her in the time of need.
• Thus, the divorced sister could be regarded as a dependent.
• The Court noted that the petitioner has married subsequently after his divorce and had a daughter born out of the second wedlock.
• Thus, taking into account all the dependants, the Court concluded that the amount of maintenance to which the petitioner was entitled would be 6000 payable from the date of change in salary of husband.

CONCLUSION

The object of Section 125 is to ensure social justice and this social justice cannot be confined to justice for the party claiming the maintenance but must also extend to everyone who might be affected by the order of maintenance. This judgement correctly reflects on the very object and purpose of Section 125.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement