Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi & Anr.

Case Name – Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi And Anr

Case Citation – 1975 AIR 83, 1975 SCR (2) 483

Relevant Acts and Section -

Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898),
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 488

Parties involved:

Respondent – Kamla Devi
Appellant – Bhagwan Dutt

Facts of the case

On 22nd January 1957, Kamla Devi (Respondent No. 1) was married to Bhagwan Dutt, the appellant, following the Hindu ceremonies. They gave birth to a daughter (Respondent No. 2) on 22nd November 1957. Thereafter, on 18th October 1966, Respondent No. 1 filed a petition against Bhagwan Dutt for judicial separation on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. While her appeal for separation was still pending, she chose to document all applications referenced in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in the court of first Class Magistrate to guarantee maintenance for herself and her minor daughter on the ground of neglect and abandonment.

Respondent No. 1, Kamla Devi, contented that she ought to get support for her and her minor daughter on the grounds that the husband had neglected to play out his obligations as a spouse and a father. At the time of this appeal, Kamla Devi was employed as a stenographer on a monthly salary of Rs. 600, which was Rs. 200 less than the appellant. By his order dated June 6, 1969, the Magistrate held that the husband should pay Rs. 175/- for the wife and Rs. 75/- for their child as maintenance. However, the Magistrate did not consider the salary of Kamla Devi while determining the amount of maintenance.

The husband appealed the decision in the Court of Session, who held that the salary of the wife was enough to maintain herself. Therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. The Hon’ble Judge was of the opinion that Rs. 75/- pm was inadequate for the maintenance of a child. He raised the amount to Rs. 150/- pm. The Additional Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the recommendation that the Magistrate order with respect to the wife’s maintenance should be quashed and the allowance of the child should be enhanced.

A learned single Judge of the High Court declined the recommendation made with respect to the wife’s maintenance but accepted the same in regard to the allowance of the child. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the husband appealed before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues of the Case

Should the wife’s separate income be taken into consideration while determining the amount of maintenance?

Arguments

Respondent -

The Respondent contended that Sections 488 mentioned in the Code of 1898 serve as a mode of preventing vagrancy. These statutes are intended to fulfill a social purpose, with an objective to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and his children. He should be held responsible for ensuring that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destitute on the scrap heap of society.

Appellant -

The Appellant contended that if Section 488(1) is construed in the light of its primary aim, then it would be clear that the wife’s claim to maintenance should be affected by the amount of her separate income.

Judgment of the Case

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that Section 488 does not confer an absolute right on a neglected wife to claim an order of maintenance against her spouse, nor does it impose absolute liability on the husband to support her in all the circumstances. The Court held that the use of the word “may” in Section 488(1) indicates that the power conferred on the Magistrate is discretionary. A neglected wife, therefore, cannot, under this Section, claim, as of right, an order of maintenance against the husband. He also held that the Magistrate has to exercise his discretion in a judicial manner consistent with the language of the statute with regard to other relevant circumstances of the cases. However, the Magistrate has to exercise his discretion primarily towards the way in which the Legislature has been devised.

The Apex Court clearly held that the mere fact that the language of Section 488(1) does not expressly make the inability of a wife to maintain herself, it does not imply that while determining her claim and fixing the amount of maintenance, the Magistrate is debarred from taking into consideration the wife’s own separate income or means of support. Finally, the Apex Court held that there is nothing in these provisions to show that in determining the maintenance and its rate, the Magistrate has to inquire into the means of the husband alone and exclude the means of the wife altogether from consideration.

Similar Case laws

References

For a more simple understanding, refer to the article "Can working women ask for maintenance?" by clicking the link below.

Can working women ask for maintenance?