Provisions under Sections 24, 25, 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955; Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as well as similar provisions in other enactments, indicate a definite intention of the Legislature to project and pursue a public policy against vagrancy. Neither by forced separation, nor by staying the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any other similar provision, hunger is stopped. Hunger does not breed reform, it breeds madness and all the ugly distempers that make an ordered life impossible. Similarly nor needs of clothing and shelter are suspended during the stay.
Consequently, complementary moral and legal obligation on the husband to support his wife does not cease to exist, by staying the proceedings. Section 24 and other similar provisions just recognize and enforce this obligation. Court dealing with matrimonial matters while staying proceedings and while refusing to allow defence, are not enforcing this obligation. They are just enforcing rules of equity. Equity acts on the conscience and conduct of a person who is guilty of neglecting his family, wife and children, is so unconscionable that the court feels that he should not be allowed to pursue his case.
“He who seeks equity, must do equity”, is another maxim of equity. Still another maxim “Equity imparts an intent to fulfil an obligation”. And a person who is not equitable in discharging his family obligation is not entitled to any relief from a matrimonial court.
All these maxims of equity are invoked while exercising inherent powers of the court, for staying the proceedings, striking off the defence or dismissing the suit. By just passing the said orders, only the dignity of the Court is ensured, while by enforcing the order obligations to the family, wife and children are saved from vagrancy. These are two sets of obligations and they obviously require two remedies. As such, two sets of civil remedies should not be equated with double penalty.
Case Law: Suman Bala v. O.P. Arora, 1997 (2) AD 775 (Del) : 1997 (66) DL T 460:1997 (41) DRJ 235.
Ghostline Legal