New Delhi, May 7 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has upheld a Family Court order directing a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC, despite his contention that her earlier marriage had not been formally dissolved at the time of their marriage.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while dismissing a revision petition filed by Raj Kumar, refused to interfere with the Family Court’s February 2018 order granting maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month to the wife, along with litigation expenses of Rs 11,000.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in May 2009 in Uttar Pradesh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, following which they resided together in Delhi.

According to the wife, the relationship deteriorated soon after marriage, with allegations of repeated assault and mistreatment by the husband, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home.

Before the Delhi High Court, the husband argued that the wife was not legally entitled to maintenance as her earlier marriage had not been dissolved through a formal decree of divorce.

He contended that she had suppressed material facts regarding her first marriage and prior maintenance proceedings against her first husband. The petitioner further challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court and also questioned the basis on which the maintenance amount had been fixed, claiming that he was unemployed and had no stable source of income.

Opposing the plea, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the Family Court had already considered all relevant aspects while passing the maintenance order and noted that the husband had failed to lead any evidence before the Family Court proceedings.

The Delhi High Court observed that the Family Court had already dealt with the issue relating to the wife’s earlier marriage after analysing the pleadings and evidence on record.

“The respondent was able to substantiate that she resided with the first husband only for one month, whereafter he was absconding, and she had no contact with him for 12 years, as also that the petitioner was fully aware about the same,” Justice Banerjee said.

The order further stated that once the marriage between the parties and their cohabitation as husband and wife were admitted, the respondent would fall within the meaning of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.

Referring to a series of Supreme Court judgments, the Delhi High Court reiterated that provisions relating to maintenance are welfare-oriented and require liberal interpretation.

“Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women from vagrancy and/or destitution and hence, as victims of the social environment, their rights cannot be defeated by the strict construction of beneficial provisions,” it said.

Finding no “perversity, illegality, irregularity or patent error” in the Family Court’s order, the Delhi High Court said that the scope of interference in a criminal revision petition against a maintenance order was limited.

“This Court does not see any reason for interfering with the impugned order,” Justice Banerjee held while dismissing the petition.

–IANS

pds/dan