Aryaman Dubey, BML Munjal University, BML Munjal University
Facts
The first respondent, a wife, and the appellant, a husband, were wed according to Hindu customs and rituals. After the birth of their son, the first respondent was forced to leave the marital residence and later filed an application for support under Section 125. First Respondent and Second Respondent/Son received a specified amount as monthly maintenance from Family Court, who ordered that maintenance be paid as of the order's date. Being dissatisfied, the first respondent filed for criminal revision before the high court, claiming that support should be granted starting from the date the application was filed. The same appeal was granted, and the appellant claimed that the grant of support starting from the date the application was filed by the high court was illegal and unjustified given the number of adjournments sought by the first respondent.
Also claimed was that the first respondent couldn't profit from her own mistakes. First Respondent argued that the wife, who was forced to support herself and her son with great difficulty, shouldn't have to endure this, as the Family Court occasionally postponed cases on its own and caused significant delays by refusing to cooperate with the parties involved. Whether the High Court's award of maintenance retroactive to the date the application was filed was legal and justified was upheld most of the time, as evidenced by the facts in the case file.
The Appellant accepted adjournments, and the Court occasionally handled matters with complete laxity. The first respondent maintained herself as best she could during that time span in that condition. The High Court did not make a legal error by granting maintenance as of the application date because circumstances demanded it. High Court ruling upheld; instructions given; appeal dismissed.
Comments