Case Title: Mrs. Mohmuda Khatoon & Anr. v. Mr. Md. Asif
Case No.: Mat. App. No. 01/2024
Dated on: 28 May 2024
Coram: Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE Hon’ble MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellants filed an application in the Family Court, Sikkim, seeking maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 27th February 2024, the Family Court issued an order directing the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹4,000 to the appellants, starting from March 2024.This order of the family court was thereby challenged by the appellants Through an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
Provision for maintenance to be given to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. It ensures that individuals who are unable to support themselves receive financial assistance from those who have a legal obligation to provide such support, thereby preventing destitution and ensuring social justice.
Section 19(1) of Family Courts Ac,1984
Section 19(1) provides the right to appeal against the judgments or orders passed by a Family Court.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS
The appellants argued that the respondent had previously agreed to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance. However, despite the agreement, the respondents never paid the agreed amount of Rs. 5000 per month and Rs. 4000 per month was inadequate given the earlier agreement of ₹5,000 per month. The appellants contended that Document-B, an agreement between the parties involving a higher maintenance was crucial evidence supporting their claim for higher maintenance. However, it was not admitted as an exhibit in the Family Court.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Court noted that the appellants had exhibited Document-B, an agreement in which the respondent allegedly agreed to pay ₹5,000 per month as maintenance. Whatsoever, upon a queiry the hon’ble court was informed that it was not an original document but a photocopy and as such, it was not marked as an “Exhibit”. The Court clarified that it could not fault the Family Court for not considering a document that was not formally admitted as evidence due to its nature as a photocopy. The Court observed that the Family Court had taken various factors into account before deciding on the maintenance amount. These factors likely included the financial status of both parties, the needs of the petitioners, and the respondent’s ability to pay. The High Court found that the decision was supported by cogent and justifiable reasons. The High Court noted that the Family Court’s order was reasonable and well-grounded, taking into consideration the circumstances and evidence presented. Upon careful review of the Family Court’s order dated 27th February 2024, The High Court did not find any plausible reason to interfere with the Family Court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s direction for the respondent to pay a sum of ₹4,000 per month towards the maintenance of the petitioners, starting from March 2024.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
