http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: BHAGWAN DUTT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/10/1974

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1975 AIR   83            1975 SCR  (2) 483  1975 SCC  (2) 386  CITATOR INFO :  R          1986 SC 984  (5)  R          1987 SC1100  (5)

ACT: Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (Act  5  of  1898)  s.   488- Maintenance  to  wife Whether her income and  means  can  be taken into account in fixing.

HEADNOTE: The separate income and means of the wife can be taken  into account in determining the amount of maintenance payable  to her under s. 488, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. [490 D] (1)(a)  The section does not confer an absolute right  on  a neglected  wife to get an order of maintenance  against  the husband  nor  does it impose an absolute  liability  on  the husband to support her in all circumstances.  The use of the word  ,may’ in s. 488(1) indicates that the power  conferred on  the Magistrate is discretionary, though  the  discretion must be exercised in a judicial manner consistently with the language  of  the  statute  and with  due  regard  to  other relevant circumstances of the case. [486 B-I] (b)The  object of Ss. 488 to 490 being to  prevent  vagrancy and  destitution,  the Magistrate has to find  out  what  is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living  which is  neither luxurious nor penurious, but is consistent  with the  status of the family.  Such needs and  requirements  of the  wife  can  be fairly determined only  if  her  separate income,  also,  is  taken into  account  together  with  the earnings of the husband and Ms commitments. [488 D-E] (c)The  mere  fact that the language of s. 488(1)  does  not expressly  make the inability of a wife to maintain  herself a- condition precedent to the maintainability 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.   There  is a clear distinction  between  a  wife’s locus  standi to file a petition under the section  and  her being (entitled to a particular amount of maintenance.  Even in  the  case  of  a  neglected  child  the  proof  of   the preliminary  condition,  namely, the inability  to  maintain itself,  will only establish the child’s competence to  file

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

the  petition;  but its entitlement to maintenance  and  the fixation  of the amount would depend upon the discretion  of the Magistrate. [485 B-D] (d)There  is  nothing  in  the  sections  to  show  that  in determining the maintenance the Magistrate should take  into account  only the means of the husband and not the means  of the  wife.   On the contrary, s. 489(1)  provides  that  ’on proof  of  a  change  in the  circumstances  of  any  person receiving  under s. 488 a monthly allowance, the  Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit;’ and  ’circumstances’ must include  financial  circumstances. [488 E-G] P.  T. Ramankutty Achan v. Kalyanikutty, A.I.R. 1971  Kerala 22, approved. Major  Joginder  Singh. v. Bivi Raj  Mohinder  Kaur,  A.I.R. 1960,  Punjab 249, and Nanak Chand Banarsi Das and  Ors.  v. Chander Kishore and Ors.  A.I.R. 1969 Delhi 235. overruled. (2)Section  488, Cr.P.C., provides a summary remedy  and  is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and has no  relationship  with the personal law of  the  parties  It provides  a  machinery for the summary  enforcement  of  the moral  obligation  of a man towards his wife  and  children. But  s. 23 and other provisions of the Hindu  Adoptions  and Maintenance  Act 1956, relating to fixation of the  rate  of allowance,  provide  for the enforcement of  the  rights  of Hindu wives and dependents under their personal law.   There is no inconsistency between the 1956-Act 16-M 255 Sup CI/75 484 and s. 488, Cr.  P.C. Both could stand together, and  hence, there  is no question of s. 488 being partially repealed  or modified by s. 23 of the 1956 Act. [490 A-B] Manak Chand v. Shri Chandra Kishore Agarwal and Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 565, followed.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 228  of 1970. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  Order  dated the 30th April, 1970 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 90 of 1970. D.  N. Nijhawan, Urmila Kapoor and Kamlesh Bansal,  for  the appellant. Sardar Bahadur Saharya, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR  Can the income of the wife be taken into account  in determining  the amount of maintenance payable to her  under Section  488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ?  This is  the principal question for determination in this  appeal by special leave. Respondent  No. 1, Kamla Devi was married to  the  appellant Bhagwan  Dutt on January 22, 1957 according to Hindu  rites. out  of this wedlock a daughter, Respondent No. 2, was  born on November 22, 1957.  On October 18, 1966, Respondent No. 1 filed   a  petition  against  the  appellant  for   judicial separation  on the ground of desertion and cruelty.   During the  pendency  of that petition, she filed  all  application under s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in the court   of  the  Magistrate,  1st  Class,  Delhi,   claiming maintenance  for herself and for her minor daughter, on  the ground  that  the  appellant had neglected  and  refused  to maintain  them.  At the date of the  application  Respondent No. 1 was employed as a stenographer on a monthly salary  of Rs. 600/-.  The appellant was at that time earning about Rs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

800/- per month.  However, later on when the case was in the Sessions  Court in revision, the monthly income of  each  of them had increased by Rs. 1501-, approximately. By  his order dated June 6,1969 the Magistrate directed  the husband  to pay Rs. 250/- per month i.e. Rs. 175/-  for  the wife  and  Rs.  75/- for the child  for  their  maintenance. While  fixing  the amount of maintenance for the  wife,  the Magistrate   did  not  take  into  consideration   her   own independent income. Against  the  order of the Magistrate, the husband  went  in revision  to the Court of Session.  The Additional  Sessions Judge was of the view that since the income of the wife  was "substantial"  and enough to maintain herself". she was  not entitled to any maintenance.  He was further of the  opinion that Rs. 75/- p.m. allowed to the child being inadequate, it deserved  to be raised to Rs. 125/- p.m. for the  period  of the  pendency  of  the application in the  trial  court  and thereafter  to  Rs. 150/- p.m. He referred the case  to  the High  Court under s. 438 of the Code with  a  recommendation that  the order of the Magistrate to the extent  it  allowed maintenance  to the wife, be quashed, but the  allowance  of the child be enhanced as aforesaid. 485 A  learned  single  Judge of the High Court  who  heard  the reference  held that in "making an order for maintenance  in favour  of  a  wife under s. 488 of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  the court has not to take into consideration  the personal  income  of  the  wife  as  section  488  does  not contemplate such a thing".  He therefore declined the  refe- rence  pro-tanto,  but accepted the same in  regard  to  the enhancement of the allowance of the child. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the husband has now come in appeal before us. The  material part of Section 488 of the Criminal  Procedure Code is in these terms:               "(1)  if  any person having  sufficient  means               neglects  or refuses to maintain his  wife  or               his legitimate or illegitimate child unable to               maintain  itself, the District  Magistrate,  a               Presidency   Magistrate,   a    Sub-Divisional               Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first  class               may,  upon proof of such neglect  or  refusal,               order such person to make a monthly  allowance               for the maintenance of his wife or such  child               at  such  monthly  rate,  not  exceeding  five               hundred rupees in the whole as such Magistrate               thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person               as the Magistrate from time to time directs.               (2) to (5)..         ..       .."               The  corresponding part of Section 125 in  the               new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which  came               into force on 1 st April 1974, reads:               "125.  (1)  If any  person  having  sufficient               means neglects or refuses to maintain-               (a)   his wife, unable to maintain herself, or               (b)   his  legitimate  or  illegitimate  minor               child,  whether  married  or  not,  unable  to               maintain itself, or               (c)   his  legitimate  or  illegitimate  child               (not   being  a  married  daughter)  who   has               attained  majority , where such child  is,  by               reason  of any physical or mental  abnormality               or injury unable to maintain itself, or               (d)   his father or mother, unable to maintain               himself or herself.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             a  Magistrate  of the first  class  may,  upon               proof of a such neglect or refusal, order such               person  to  make a monthly allowance  for  the               maintenance of his wife, such child, father or               mother,  at  such monthly rate  not  exceeding               five  hundred  rupees in the  whole,  as  such               Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same  to               such person as the Magistrate may from time to               time direct......" A  comparative study of the provisions set out  above  would show  that  while in Section 488 the  condition  "unable  to maintain itself" 486 apparently  attached only to the child and not to the  wife, in  Section  125,  this condition has  been  expressly  made applicable to the case of wife.  Does this recasting of  the old  provision signify ally fundamental change in  the  law? Or,  has this been done merely to clarify and make  explicit what was formerly implict ? Section 488 does not confer an absolute right on a neglected wife to get an order of maintenance against the husband  nor does  it  impose  an absolute liability on  the  husband  to support her in all circumstances.  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.  of course, the  Magistrate has  to  exercise  his  discretion  in  a  judicial   manner consistently  with  the  language of the  statute  with  the regard   to  other  relevant  circumstances  of  the   case. Nevertheless, the Magistrate has to exercise his  discretion primarily towards the end which the Legislature had in  view in enacting the provision. Sections, 488, 489 and 490 constitute one family.  They have been  grouped  together in Ch.  XXXVI of the  Code  of  1898 under  the  caption,  "of  the  maintenance  of  wives   and children".   This  Chapter,  in  the  words  of  Sir   James Fitzstephen, provides " a mode of preventing vagrancy, or at least of preventing its consequences".  These provisions are intended  to  fulfil a social purpose.  Their object  is  to compel  a man to perform the moral obligation which he  owes to  society  in  respect  of  his  wife  and  children.   By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief, they seek  to ensure  that  the neglected wife and children are  not  left beggared  and  destituted on the scrap-heap of  society  and thereby  driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and  crime for their subsistence.  Thus, S-section 488 is not  intended to provide for a full and final determination of the  status and  personal  rights  of  the  parties.   The  jurisdiction conferred  by the Section on the Magistrate is more  in  the nature of a preventive, rather than a remedial jurisdiction; it is certainly not punitive.  As pointed out in  Thompson’s case(1)  "the scope of the Chapter XXXVI is limited and  the Magistrate  cannot, except as thereunder provide, usurp  the jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes possessed by the  Civil Courts".   Sub-section (2) of s. 489 expressly makes  orders passed under Chapter XXXVI of the Code subject to any  final adjudication  that may be made by a civil Court between  the parties regarding their status and civil rights. The  stage  is  now set  for  appreciating  the  contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr.  Nijhawan,  learned Counsel for the  appellant  contends that  if s. 488(1) is construed in the light of its  primary object and. the nature of the jurisdiction conferred by  it, together  with  s. 489(1), it would be amoly clear  that  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

determining the wife’s claim to maintenance and its quantum, her  independent  income  is a  relevant  consideration.  in support  of this contention, Counsel has referred  to  Mohd. Ali v. Mt. (1)  6 N.W.P. 205. 487 Sakina   Begum(1)  Narasimha  Ayyar  v.   Rangathayammal(2); Ploonnabalam v.     Saraswathi(3);   Ahmed  Ali   Saheb   v. Sarfara linisa Begum (4) and P.    T.  Ramankutty A chan  v. Kalyanikutty(5). As  against the above, Mr. Sardar Bahadur Saharya  maintains that  the  very  fact that the Section  does  not  make  the inability  of  a  wife  to  maintain  herself,  a  condition precedent to the grant of maintenanceas it does in the  case of  child-shows  that the intention of the  Legislature  was that the wife’s own income or means should not be taken into account  either for determining her right to maintenance  or for  fixing  its  amount.   It is  further  urged  that  the language  of s. 489 cannot be called in aid to  construe  s. 488 (1).  Reliance for the main argument has been placed  on Major Joginder Singh v. Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur.(6) In  Major  Joginder  Singh’s. case  (supra),  the  wife  had claimed  maintenance  under  s. 488, Cr.   P.  C.  both  for herself  and her minor son.  The husband was a Major in  the army, getting Rs. 1070/- p.m. It is not very clear from  the Report  as  to whether the wife was having  any  substantial income of her own.  However, an argument was raised that she had  her  own means of support which should  be  taken  into account for determining her right to maintenance. The  learned  Judge  who decided  the  case,  negatived  the contention, thus :               "It  is  obvious  from  the  language  of  the               section  that  in order to enable a  child  to               claim maintenance it has to be proved that the               child is unable to maintain itself’.  No  such               condition  has been imposed in the case  of  a               wife.  Cases in which maintenance was  refused               to the wife merely on the ground that she  was               in a position to maintain herself have, in  my               view,  omitted to consider the implication  of               this  distinction while construing  the  scope               and  effect  of s. 488.  In  my  opinion,  the               ability  of the wife to maintain  herself  was               not intended by the legislature to deprive her               of the right of maintenance conferred by  this               section, if she is otherwise found entitled to               it.."               Commenting on the cases cited before him,  the               learned Judge further observed :               "But  if those authorities intend to lay  down               any  rigid  rule of law that  the  only  right               which a wife possesses under s. 488,  Cr.P.C.,               is  to claim just subsistence allowance  which               should merely provide bare food, residence and               raiment and that also only if she has no other               means  or  source, then I must  with  respect,               record my emphatic dissent." It  may be noted that the above principle spelled  out  from the  interpretation of s. 488(1) in Major  Joginder  Singh’s case (supra), (1)  A.I.R. 1944 Lah. 394. (3)  A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 693. (5)  A.I.R. 1971 Kerala 22. (2)  A.I.R. 1947 Mad. 204. (4)  A.I.R. 1952 Hyd. 76

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

(6)  A.I.R. 1960 Punjab 249. 488 was  carried a step further by the Division Bench  in  Nanak Chand Banarsi Dass and ors. v. Cliander Kishore and  Ors.(1) to  deduce the proposition that the wife’s right to  receive maintenance  under  s. 488, Criminal Procedure  Code  is  an absolute right. In  our  opinion, one wrong assumption has  led  to  another false  deduction.   The mere fact that the  language  of  s. 488(1)  does not expressly make the inability of a  wife  to maintain    herself   a   condition   precedent    to    the maintainability  of her petition, 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.   There is  a  clear distinction between a wife’s locus  standi,  to file  a  petition under s. 488 and her  being  entitled,  on merits,  to a particular amount of  maintenance  thereunder. This  distinction appears to have been overlooked  in  Major Joginder  Singh’s  case (supra).  Proof of  the  preliminary condition attached to a neglected child will establish  only his  competence to file the petition but his entitlement  to maintenance,  particularly the fixation of its amount,  will still depend upon the discretion of the Magistrate.  As  the Magistrate is required to exercise that discretion in a just manner,  the  income of the wife, also, must be put  in  the scales of justice as against the means of the husband. The object of those provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution,  the Magistrate has to find out as to  what  is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living  which is   neither  luxurious  nor  penurious,  but  is   modestly consistent  with  the status of the family.  The  needs  and requirements  of  the wife for such moderate living  can  be fairly  determined,  only if her separate income,  also,  is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments. 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. Rather,  there is a definite indication in the  language  of the associate s. 489(1) that the financial resources of  the wife  are  also a relevant consideration in  making  such  a determination.  Section 489(1) provides inter alia, that "on proof  of  a  change  in the  circumstances  of  any  person receiving under s. 488 a monthly allowance, the  Magistrate, may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit". The  "circumstances" contemplated by s. 489(1) must  include financial  circumstances and in that view,the inquiry as  to the  change in the circumstances must extend to a change  in the financial circumstances of the wife. Keeping in view the object, scheme, setting and the language of these associate provisions in Chapter XXXVI, it seems  to us clear that in determining the amount of maintenance under s.  488(1),  the  Magistrate  is  competent  to  take   into consideration the separate income and means of the wife. (1)  A.I.R. 1969 Delhi 235. 489 We  do not wish to burden this judgment with  discussion  of all the decisions that have been cited at the Bar.  It  will suffice  to notice one of them rendered by the  Kerala  High Court  in  which  Major Joginder Singh’s  case  (supra)  was explained and distinguished.  That case in P. T.  Ramankutti v.  Kalyankutty (supra) therein, the husband was  getting  a net  salary of Rs. 240/-, while the monthly salary.  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

wife  was (after deductions) Rs. 210/-.  The  question,  was whether the wife in such a financial position had a right to claim  maintenance  under s.488,  Criminal  Procedure  Code. after  referring  to the observations of Dua,  J.  in  Major Joginder Singh’s case (supra) and surveying the case law  on the  subject,  the learned single Judge of the  Kerala  High Court correctly summed up the position thus ;               "To take the view that in granting maintenance               under  Section  488  to a  wife  her  personal               income also can be considered may  Prima-facie               appear  to  be  against the  language  of  the               section  because  the  condition  "unable   to               maintain  itself" appearing  therein  attaches               itself  only  to child and not to  wife.   But               that   condition  has  application   only   in               considering the maintainability of a  petition               filed under s.488. A wife can file a  petition               under   that  section  irrespective   of   the               question  whether  she is able  or  unable  to               maintain  herself.  But on her application  at               the time of the granting of monthly  allowance               to her there is nothing prohibiting the  Court               from considering whether she can maintain her-               self  with  her  own income and  if  she  can,               granting her nothing by way of allowance." Any  other construction would be subversive of  the  primary purpose of the section and encourage vindictive wives having ample  income and means of their own, to misuse the  section as a punitive weapon against their husbands. It is next contended on behalf of the appellant that s.  488 must be deemed to have been partially repealed and  modified by  s. 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance  Act,  1956 (for   short,  called  the  Act)  which  provides  that   in determining the amount of maintenance, the Court shall have, inter alia, regard "to the value of the wife’s property  and any income derived from such property or from the claimant’s own earning or from other sources". Clause (b) of s.4 of that Act provides "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act (a)        x               x                 x (b)  any   other  law  in  force  immediately   before   the commencement  of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus  in so  far  as it is inconsistent with any  of  the  provisions contained in this Act." The  question  therefore resolves itself into  the  issue  : whether  there is any thing in s.488 which is in  consistent withs  .23 or any other provisions of the act.  This  matter is  no  longer resititegra.In Nanak Chand  v.  Shri  Chandra Kishore  Agarwala and Ors.(1) this Court held that there  is no inconsistency between Act 78 of 1956 and s. 488, Criminal Procedure (1)  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 565. 490 Code.  Both could stand together.  The Act of 1956 is an Act to  amend  and  codify  the law  relating  to  adoption  and maintenance among Hindus.  The law was substantially similar before  when  it  was never suggested  that  there  was  any inconsistency  with S. 488, Cr.  P. C. The scope of the  two laws  is different.  Section 488 provides a  summary  remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to all  religions and  has  no  relationship  with the  personal  law  of  the parties. We  have said and it needs to be said again, that s. 488  is intended to serve a social purpose.  It provides a machinery for  summary enforcement of the moral obligations of  a  man

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

towards  his wife and children so that they may not, out  of sheer  destitution  become  a hazard to  the  well-being  of orderly  society.  As against this, s. 23 and  other  provi- sions  of  the  Act  relating to fixation  of  the  rate  of allowance,  provide  for the enforcement of  the  rights  of Hindu  wives or dependents under their personal  law.   This contention therefore is meritless and we negative the same. For  the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal,  set  aside the judgment of the High Court and send the case back to the trial  Magistrate to refix the amounts of  maintenance.   In the case of the wife, he shall together with other  relevant circumstances,  take into account her income also.   In  the case  of  the daughter, he shall afford opportunity  to  the parties to lead fresh evidence and then refix her allowance. V.P.S. Appeal allowed. 491