[Section 125 CrPC] Able-bodied husband duty-bound to maintain wife, child even by doing physical labour: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that an able-bodied husband is duty-bound to maintain his wife and minor child even by doing physical labour and he cannot shirk that responsibility saying he has no source of income [Anuj Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg]..A division bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi was of the view that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children."It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute," the Court said..It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.Supreme Court.The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had upheld a family court's decision to reject the maintenance plea filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).It, however, granted maintenance to the minor child.Before the apex court, the appellant-wife argued that the High Court had passed the order in a very perfunctory manner without appreciating the conduct of the respondent-husband during the proceedings before the Family Court.It was pointed out that despite issuance of conditional warrants of arrest against the husband by the family court, he had failed to appear in the Court and to make payment of interim maintenance.It was also submitted that due to the conduct of the respondent-husband, his right to cross-examine the witness was also struck-off by the family court.On the other hand, the respondent-husband argued that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home along with the children without any justifiable reason and had failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself.He further submitted that though he has a party plot, the same was closed, he has no other source of income..The Court placed reliance on its decision in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), wherein it was stated that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children.The apex court came down heavily on the family court, noting that it had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of Section 125."The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute," the top court said..The Court has also rejected the stand of the respondent-husband that he has no source of regular income as his business has now been closed."The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants."The Court, therefore, granted maintenance allowance of ₹10,000 per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of ₹6,000 granted by the Family Court to the minor son..[Read Judgment]