The current petition is presented before the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh. It is challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Jind on 13.02.2019 which dismissed the petition under 125 CrPC filed by the petitioner/wife.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent/husband got married on 17.11.2010. Two children were born out of their wedlock. The parties started living separately since 31.07.2014. The petitioner has filed FIR No.422 dated 06.06.2015 under sections 498A, 406, 323, and 506 IPC at Police Station City Jind, which is still pending.
The ld. counsel for wife submitted that her parents spent Rs. 3 lakhs in the marriage and also gave dowry. They also claimed that during her time at the household, she was beaten mercilessly by the respondent and his family.
The ld. counsel further claimed that the respondent is working in a factory and earning Rs.12k per month. However, it is the categoric founding of the ld. Family Court that the respondent is earning Rs.6-7k per month.
Since the wife has not given any sufficient reason for deserting the matrimonial home, the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance u/s 125(4) CrPC.
The petitioner has stated that she has not filed any application seeking custody of her minor children. The respondent is maintaining the 2 children, aged 1-3, along with his aged parents. While the wife has no such responsibility and is able bodied, yet she wasn’t working.
Considering all the facts of the case HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA stated that :
“11. It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. Especially keeping in mind, the fact that she is able-bodied. The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. The said provision cannot be permitted to be misused to allow able bodied wives to sit idly at home while husband works, earns, looks after day to day, emotional, financial, and physical requirements, and maintains the minor children as also his other dependent family members.”
The ld. court held that the present petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Research and Inputs – Triaksh Kapoor