Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a notable decision, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, upheld the order of maintenance for a wife and son despite the wife not disclosing her income. The court noted “truth is not always decisive for giving justice. Justice is more important than truth.”

The court, presided over by Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh, delivered the ruling stating that “merely because she is doing a job in private Company the applicant who is able bodied husband and father cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance.”

The case was filed challenging the Family Court's decision. The petitioner, Prakash, argued that his wife, Vithabai, had been deceitful in her maintenance application by failing to disclose her earnings from a private job, amounting to ₹12,000-₹15,000 per month. He contended that this concealment of facts was grounds for cancelling the maintenance previously awarded. Prakash also claimed that he was financially constrained, earning a meager amount himself and unable to meet the maintenance obligations.

Respondent Vithabai, countered by stating that despite her employment, her income was insufficient to cover her and her son's expenses, especially considering the rising cost of living. She emphasized her son's educational needs and the insufficiency of the current maintenance amount. Vithabai further highlighted that her husband's financial status was misrepresented and that he had significant earnings from multiple sources, including a substantial salary and rental income.

The court noted that although Vithabai had a private job, the maintenance granted previously was minimal, and the expenses she faced justified the enhancement of the maintenance amount. The court observed that mere non-disclosure of income did not invalidate the maintenance claim, as the primary objective was to ensure the welfare of the dependent wife and child.

The court held that the trial court had rightly considered the circumstances and increased the maintenance by ₹1,000 and ₹1,500 per month for Vithabai and her son, respectively, bringing the total to ₹3,500 per month. The court underscored “The proceeding under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding. On this ground suppressing material fact does not extinguish right of maintenance. It is not an equitable relief which dis- entitles the persons who are not coming before the Court with clean hands.”

Referencing to the case of ‘Ashfak s/o Jafar Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra’ the court upheld that “The Court is not expected to search or reveal the truth of that particular case.The duty of the Court is to decide rights, liabilities etc… It does not mean that truth has no importance at all. It has importance if total false evidence is given certainly it cannot be relied upon. Therefore, in such fact situation truth has importance, but not in each and every case strictly.”

The court further noted “The object of the law is to give justice and no importance is given to the revealing of truth. In case of conflict between truth and justice, certainly justice will prevail. If the Court insists for the truth and if consequences of it are causing justice, it is better truth which is not intended by statutes. It may cause injustice.”

Consequently, the court dismissed the revision application, reaffirming the trial court's decision and imposing a cost of ₹5,000 on Prakash, to be paid with 9% annual interest if not deposited by July 1, 2024.

 

Cause Title: Prakash v Vithabai [CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2023]