The Gujarat High Court recently reaffirmed the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his family, while upholding a 660-day jail sentence imposed in a long-standing maintenance dispute.
The case arose from a 2014 order passed by a Family Court in Ahmedabad, where a man was sentenced to imprisonment for failing to pay maintenance dues amounting to ₹3.97 lakh to his wife and two children.
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar, while dismissing the husband’s challenge, observed that the Family Court had given proper reasons and there was no ground to interfere with its findings.
“The family Court has assigned proper reasons while passing the impugned order and therefore no case is made out for interference with the concurrent findings,” the Court stated.
The dispute traces back to a marriage solemnised in March 2002 under Hindu rites. The couple later separated in August 2007, following which the wife approached the court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In 2013, the Family Court directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and children. However, he failed to comply with this order, resulting in the accumulation of arrears.
Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 125(3) of the Code, which allows courts to enforce maintenance orders and impose imprisonment in case of non-payment.
During these proceedings, the husband appeared before the Family Court and admitted that the maintenance amount was due. He also stated that he lacked the financial means to pay and requested a lesser punishment.
After recording his statement and ensuring that he understood the consequences, the Family Court imposed a sentence of ten days’ simple imprisonment for each month of default. Since the default extended over 66 months, the total sentence amounted to 660 days.
The High Court found this calculation to be reasonable and proportionate. It noted that the sentence could not be considered excessive, as it was directly linked to the duration of non-payment.
“Since the default pertained to 66 months, a total sentence of 660 days was imposed after granting the benefit of set-off. Considering the aforesaid facts, the sentence of ten days for each month of default cannot be said to be disproportionate.”
The Court also took note of the husband’s conduct during the proceedings. It observed that he had voluntarily surrendered before the Family Court and admitted both his liability and his unwillingness to pay the maintenance amount.
Further, the High Court recorded that the applicant had shown little interest in pursuing his case. After his earlier lawyer became a public prosecutor, a new counsel was engaged. However, despite being served notice, the applicant failed to appear before the Court.
As a result, the matter was decided in his absence based on the available record.
Reinforcing the importance of maintenance laws, the Court emphasised that such provisions are meant to ensure financial security and dignity for dependants.
“It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father to maintain his legally wedded wife and children, which is his social and lawful duty towards them and the wife and children would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were enjoying while living with them.”
The Court ultimately dismissed the application, upholding the Family Court’s order in its entirety.
——————————————–
Have a case update, article, or deal to share? Courtroom Today welcomes contributions from lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals. Write to contact@courtroomtoday.com
