New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings.
“If non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC), as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings,” it said.
In its detailed judgement, the apex court referred to the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India, where it was observed that the primary justification for placing provisions relating to the maintenance of wives and children, which is a civil matter, in the Criminal Procedure Code was that a remedy, speedier and more economical than that available in the civil courts, is provided to them.
It added that the Law Commission noted that the provision was aimed at preventing starvation and vagrancy, leading to the commission of a crime.
Further, the SC referred to an earlier judgement, where it was observed that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy.
It had held: “Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. Thus, the objective of the provision, then and now, is to alleviate the financial plight of destitute wives, children and now, parents, who are left to fend for themselves.”
Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. provides to the effect that, if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate children, falling in the prescribed categories, or his parents, who are all unable to maintain themselves, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to pay a monthly allowance, as thought fit, for their maintenance.
“Notably, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not of recent origin. It is analogous to and in continuance of Section 488 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,” said a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The 28-page long judgement upheld the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
“In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C,” the apex court held.
(IANS)
