'Strange': SC Takes Exception to UP Govt Counsel Opposing Maintenance Plea by Muslim Woman, Daughter

The Supreme Court has taken exception to the Uttar Pradesh state counsel opposing a Muslim woman’s plea seeking maintenance from her husband, observing that this approach is “strange”.

“We are surprised to note that the counsel for the state has taken up the cause of the husband,” said a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The court was hearing an appeal by the woman about maintenance payable to her and her minor daughter. The bench said, “The approach of the state in taking the side of the husband in a maintenance case, to say the least, is very strange.”

The top court further said the state counsel, in fact, is under a duty and obligation to act as an officer of the court and to assist the court in arriving at a correct conclusion.

The bench directed this order to be forwarded to the secretaries of the home and law departments of Uttar Pradesh. But, it also clarified that the state government will not blame or penalise the advocates who represented it before the court.

In an order dated March 20, 2021, the family court allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and granted total maintenance of Rs 12,000 per month. The woman and her husband preferred revision applications.

The SC further noted that the high court, in a cryptic order on August 26, 2021, reduced the maintenance by a sum of Rs 2,000 per month without hearing the woman. “Obviously, the high court could not have passed such an order ex parte, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants,” the bench stated.

Again on April 8, 2022, the HC dismissed the woman’s application in view of opposition by the state counsel. It did not issue a notice to the husband.

“We must mention two strange facts. The revision application preferred by the appellants (wife and the minor daughter) was vehemently opposed by the counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, as passed by the high court,” the bench stated.

“Moreover, in both the appeals, there is a counter affidavit filed by the superintendent of police, Rampur, UP, opposing the appeals. The legality of the impugned order has been justified in the affidavit,” the bench added.

The SC set aside both the orders and restored the matter to the file of the high court. It also directed the registrar (judicial) of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to the revision applications for directions before the roster bench on March 11, in the morning session when the first appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent (husband) will appear before the court for fixing the date for hearing of the revision applications.

The court partly allowed the appeals and restored the family court’s order.