Deepak S/O Daulat Singh Bathabm vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Deepak S/o Daulat Singh Bathabm, approached the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash an order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Family Court at Vadodara. This order granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to his wife, the respondent no. 2. The marriage took place on 24.11.2016. Disputes arose, leading the wife to reside with her parents. Subsequently, she filed an application for interim maintenance, which resulted in the impugned order. The applicant contended that the wife had presented a false income affidavit, concealed her business ownership (Adarsh Security Intelligence Force with a GST number), ownership of a house, and a loan from the State Bank of India, indicating she was an earning and tax-paying individual. He also argued she left the matrimonial home voluntarily and incurred extra expenses for a rented accommodation.

Held

The Court dismissed the applicant's prayer. It noted that the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to an applicant based on the husband's sufficient means and his neglect to maintain a wife unable to maintain herself. The Court observed that the Family Court had fixed maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month after considering the applicant's gross salary of Rs. 1,12,000/- and net salary of Rs. 1,00,000/-, along with the wife's disability and the applicant's responsibility for his aged mother and his own ailment. Crucially, during arguments, the applicant admitted to arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 4,10,000/- from 29.03.2019 till date, which he had not paid and was unable to deposit. Citing the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in 'Bani v. Parkashsingh', the Court emphasized that a husband's failure to pay maintenance can lead to the striking out of his defence. The Court concluded that a negligent husband who fails to pay awarded maintenance is not entitled to relief and found it unfit to accept the applicant's prayer. The application was rejected at the admission stage without issuing notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Family Court erred in not properly considering the respondent no. 2's alleged false income affidavit and concealment of material facts regarding her income and assets, specifically her business with a GST number, property ownership, and loan sanction, thereby violating the guidelines set by the Apex Court? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant (Deepak S/o Daulat Singh Bathabm): Argued that the respondent no. 2 is a businesswoman running a business with a GST number, owns a house, and obtained a loan, all of which were concealed from the Family Court. He asserted that these facts demonstrate her earning capacity and tax-paying status, contrary to her affidavit. He also claimed she left the matrimonial home voluntarily and incurred additional expenses for a rented home. He contended that the Family Court erred in not considering these facts and that the respondent no. 2 misused the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. for personal benefit. Revenue/State: No arguments recorded for the respondent no. 1 (State of Gujarat) or respondent no. 2 (wife) in the judgment.