Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Jan 13: The Supreme Court has clarified that proceedings related to non-compliance with maintenance orders, despite their penal consequences, are civil in nature and do not qualify as criminal proceedings.
The apex court stated, “If non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. The nomenclature of maintenance proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot conclusively determine their nature.”
In its detailed judgment, the court referred to the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India, which justified placing maintenance provisions for wives and children—a civil matter—within the CrPC framework. The rationale was to provide a faster and more economical remedy than civil courts could offer, aiming to prevent starvation and vagrancy that might lead to crime.
The court reiterated its earlier stance, emphasizing that maintenance proceedings are not punitive. Instead, they serve as a means to prevent destitution and provide essential support, such as food, clothing, and shelter, to deserted wives and dependents.
“Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice designed to protect women and children. It aligns with the constitutional mandate under Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39, to alleviate the financial hardship of destitute individuals, including wives, children, and parents,” the court observed.
Under Section 125(1) of the CrPC, a Magistrate can order a person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to support their wife, children, or parents, who cannot maintain themselves, to pay a monthly allowance as deemed appropriate.
The judgment highlighted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. traces its roots back to Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, underscoring its historical continuity.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar upheld a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., stating that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the husband’s favor, combined with the wife’s non-compliance, does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance.
“In any event, such a decree, coupled with non-compliance by the wife, would not directly determine her right to maintenance or invoke disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.,” the bench held in its 28-page judgment.
This landmark ruling reinforces the objective of maintenance laws as a tool of social justice, providing a lifeline to those in financial distress, while also clarifying the legal interpretation of such proceedings.