Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. When the aforesaid anguish was expressed, the c predicament was riot expected to be removed with any kind of magic. However, the fact remains, these litigations can really corrode the human relationship not only today but will also have the impact for years to come and has the potentiality to take a toll on the society. It occurs either due to the D uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the Courts to curtail them. There need not be hurry but procrastination should not be manifest, reflecting the attitude of the Court. E As regards the second facet, it is the duty of the Court to have the complete control over the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without knowing when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a F corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown bank of the river. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook. "Men may come and men may go, but I go on for ever." This would be the greatest tragedy that can happen to the adjudicating system which is required to deal with most sensitive matters G between the man and wife or other family members relating to matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to be a pro- active approach :n this regard and the said approach should be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under the High Courts. For the SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN [DIPAK MISRA, J.] present, we say no more.
14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was B getting a monthly salary of Rs.17 ,654/-.
15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to c conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman D suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within G the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt A that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These B are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance C under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors.£131 has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj G v. Sita Ba11141, it has been ruled that:- "Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and (131 (1997) 7 sec 7 (141 (ZOOB) 2 sec 316 SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN [DIPAK MISRA, J.] as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kausha11151 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujaratl161." c This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is ~apable of earning.
17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakashl17lwherein it has been opined thus:- "An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he,cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and [151 (1978) 4 sec 10 (161 c2005) 3 sec 636 (17] AIR 1968 Delhi 174 child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
18. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. C Sometimes, she feels she has lostthe tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.
19. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. As is manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the factthat she has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no revisional court should have interfered with the reason on the base that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When substantial justice has been done, there G was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solelybecause the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN [DIPAK MISRA, J.] deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-application of A mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order.
20. Having stated the principle, we would have proceeded to record our consequential conclusion. But, a significant one, we cannot be oblivious of the asseverations B made by the appellant. It has been asserted that the respondent had taken voluntary retirement after the judgment dated 17 .2.2012 with the purpose of escaping the liability to pay the maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner; that the last drawn salary of respondent taken C into account by the learned Family Judge was Rs.17,564/- as per salary slip of May, 2009 and after deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the salary of the respondent was Rs.12,564/- and hence, even on the basis of the last basic pay (i.e. 0 Rs. 9, 830/-) of the respondent the total pension would come to Rs.14,611/-and if40% of commutation is taken into account then the pension of the respondent amounts to Rs.11,535/-; and that the respondent, in addition to his pension, hand received encashment of commutation to the extent of 40% E i.e. Rs.3,84,500/- and other retiral dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, Gratuity and leave encashmentto the tune of Rs.16,01,455/-.
21. The aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the respondent- husband has not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, we are disposed to accept the assertions. This exposition of facts further impels us to set aside the order of the High Court.
22. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the orders G passed by the High Court are set aside and that of the Family Court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.