SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

ANJU vs DEEPAK CRL-A 1693/22 28/09/22 [ DINESH JJ

• Section 125 CRPC Maintenance for wife and children Held, conduct of Respondent in not appearing before the Family Court despite issuance of warrants, clearly established his disregard for law and for his own family As his evidence was closed, allegations made by wife in her evidence remained unchallenged Wife clearly stated as to how harassment and cruelty as also neglect by husband led her to leave her matrimonial home with her children Documentary evidence led by her proved husband’s demand for money from her father – Thus, no reason for Family Court to disbelieve her version and believe oral submissions made by respondent which were not supported by evidence – Husband even questioned her chastity without any supporting evidence – Though Family Court rejected his application for DNA test and granted maintenance to son, it mis-directed itself by not granting maintenance to wife – Therefore, High Court erred in casually approving Family Court’s order without giving any reasons. [Paras 11 and 12]

11) it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children”. disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the
respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no.2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.

12) Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.

 

click here for read the judgment 

Judgement_28-Sep-2022 ANJU GARG & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DEEPAK KUMAR GARG

 

All rights reserved (Adv Alka Singh)