Kerala High Court bats for maintenance law so that women, children are not forced to move courts for allowance

The Kerala High Court recently urged the parliament to consider bringing in a comprehensive maintenance law so that destitute women and children are not forced to approach courts to get their monthly allowance [Rijas MT v. Hafseena M]..Justice CS Dias noted that the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. had issued detailed guidelines to eliminate stumbling blocks in the disposal of maintenance applications and the enforcement of orders.However, courts continue to adopt procedures that cause inordinate delays which only prolong the miseries of the persons living in vagrancy, the Court observed. It, therefore, suggested that the parliament bring in changes to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which deals with the maintenance of wives, children and parents. "Destitute women and children are made to loiter in the corridors of the Courts to receive their monthly maintenance, which adds to their woes. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v Neha and again reiterated in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma, this Court is of the firm view that the time is ripe for the Parliament to ponder in bringing corresponding changes in Chapter IX of the Code to make it consonance with the law declared in Rajnesh or even think of a comprehensive maintenance law," the Court said. .The Court made the observations while considering a revision petition moved by a man challenging the order of a family court sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for ten months after he failed to pay the arrears of maintenance allowance to his wife and two children for twenty eight months..Considering the provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC and relevant precedents, the High Court reiterated that the maximum sentence that can be imposed for non-payment of maintenance under Section 125(3) is a month's imprisonment for every month’s default.Therefore, it found that it was unnecessary to alter the family court's order sentencing the petitioner to 10 months imprisonment. "In the said situation, it would be a mockery of justice to sentence the revision petitioner with a fleabite sentence of imprisonment for one month, as urged by his Counsel, when admittedly the revision petitioner has to pay arrears of maintenance for 28 months. It is only a hyper-technical contention that the respondents have to file separate execution applications for each month’s default, and only then can separate sentences of imprisonment for up to a month be imposed. The law does not postulate such an arduous procedure to be followed by persons living in vagrancy and destitution," the Court observed. .It also found that the family court had not erred in its manner of levying fines or issuing a warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner, especially considering the law laid down in Rajneesh."In the emerged scenario post Rajnesh, I do not find any meaningful purpose in the Courts ritualistically following the procedure under Section 421, especially after the respondent states on oath that he has no property, other than to prolong the miseries of the persons living in vagrancy," the Court said..Therefore, the Court confirmed the order of the family court imposing 10 months imprisonment but clarified that he shall be released from prison on paying the entire maintenance sum due to his wife and children. .The petitioner was represented by advocate Legith T Kottakkal. Advocate TB Ramani appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]