In a maintenance plea filed by a wife and her minor daughter, the Supreme Court recently expressed astonishment at the State’s stance of supporting the husband. The court remarked, “The approach of the State in favoring the husband in a maintenance case is, to say the least, very surprising. The learned counsel representing the State had a duty and obligation to act as an officer of the Court and assist in arriving at a correct conclusion.” The statement was made by the Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal.
The case background can be succinctly summarized as follows: The appellants, comprising the mother and daughter, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, resulting in the Family Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per month. Both the appellants and the second respondent, the husband, filed revision applications against this decision. In one of the challenged orders, the High Court reduced the maintenance by Rs. 2,000 per month. In the second order, the High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants against the first order.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court Bench observed that the High Court had issued a “cryptic order” without providing the appellants with an opportunity for a hearing. The court pointed out that such an ex-parte order without affording the appellants a chance to present their case was inappropriate. The court further noted that the husband was not served notice, and the appellants’ revision application was dismissed solely based on the vehement opposition of the counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Supreme Court has overturned the challenged orders of the High Court and reinstated the matter to the High Court’s docket. Before concluding, it clarified that the Uttar Pradesh government should not hold responsible or penalize the advocates who represented it before the Court. Consequently, the Family Court’s order granting maintenance to the appellants has been reinstated. The wife and minor daughter are now permitted to seek appropriate directives from the High Court concerning the payment of arrears and current maintenance in accordance with the Family Court’s order.
Advocates for the appellants: AOR Rohit Amit Sthalekar; Advocates Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra, Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Gopeshwar Sigh Chandel, Abdul Bari Khan
Advocates for the respondents: Senior Advocate, AAG UP Garima Prasad; AOR Kausar Raza Faridi and Sudeep Kumar; Advocates Ramesh Thakur, Sarfaraz Khan, Shahbaaz Jameel, Ali Muzaffar, Sarika Verma, Amit Pandey, and Nbvs Reddy
Case Title: Asiya Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh& Anr., Criminal Appeal No(S). 824 of 2024
