Manju Sharma vs. Vipin Case dealt with the interpretation of Maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It renders maintenance to women both married or divorced. Courts have the authority to award maintenance at the rate which they deem fit. And such maintenance is subject to modification in case there are any changes in the financial situation of the parties involved. It is the claimant who needs to prove that the “husband has sufficient means, yet has neglected or refused to provide maintenance”.

CITATION:

Crl. Rev. Petition 103/2015

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:

1.7.2019

BENCH:

Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva

RELEVANT ACT:

Code of Criminal Procedure

RELEVANT SECTION:

Section 125

FACTS OF MANJU SHARMA VS. VIPIN CASE:

• Both the parties were married on 11.7.2008 and gave birth to a daughter on 14.11.2010. But soon after it turned out the petitioner of her matrimonial home as she did not bring enough dowry and car after marriage.
• The respondent had filed for divorce which was pending before the court additionally the petitioner filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the court passed an order assessing the income of husband Rs.30,000 per month and awarding Rs.10,000 per month to the petitioner as maintenance after which the petitioner filed for enhancement of the maintenance but same was rejected by the appellate court.
• Hence, this petition was filed for enhancement of maintenance to Rs.40,000  per month.

CONTENTIONS:

• The petitioner asserted the respondent is involved in the manufacturing and sales of RO Water purifiers and has a turnover between 50 lakhs to 1 crore.
• The father of the petitioner has a jeweler’s showroom which is run by the respondent and his brother.
• The petitioner also contended that the appellate court was inaccurate as they failed to recognize various sources of income of the respondent and also disregarded the fact that the respondent misled the court about his actual earnings.
• The petitioner moreover expressed the fact that her daughter has an eye ailment that requires regular medical attention and it costs around Rs.5000 per month.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

• The bench relied on judicial precedent laid in the case of Bhuvan Mohan Singh V. Meena  (2015) 6 SCC 353, in which the court stated, that section 125 was developed for improving the agony, anguish, and financial suffering of a woman to create an adequate arrangement for her which could help her sustain.
• Here sustenance does not show living life as an animal but it implies that the law permits women to lead a life identically as they would have lived with their husbands.
• And at this stage, reputation, status, and strata come into question. A husband could not deprive his wife to live life with dignity.
• And the rationale for the grant of maintenance under section 125 is extended to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

DECISION OF MANJU SHARMA VS. VIPIN 2019 CASE: The court agreed to the contention of the petitioner that an error was committed in assessing the income of the respondent and therefore granted the petitioner Rs.30,000 per month as maintenance.

Found Manju Sharma vs. Vipin case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT