Chattisgarh High Court
Kamlesh Verma vs Smt. Chetna Verma on 3 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:15821
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1078 of 2023
Kamlesh Verma S/o Shri Pardeshi Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Raikheda, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Chetna Verma W/o Shri Kamlesh Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o
Raikheda, Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.), Presently
Residing At Village Mura, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Ku. Palak Verma D/o Kamlesh Verma Aged About 7 Years (Minor)
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chetna Verma, R/o Raikheda,
Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.), Presently Residing At
Village Mura, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
03/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by the impugned order dated 17.07.2023, passed by learned Principal
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.04.11
19:52:51 +0530
2
Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Criminal MCC No. 46 of 2021,
whereby an amount of Rs. 8000/- has been granted as monthly
maintenance to the present respondents payable from the date of
application. It is also ordered that the maintenance amount granted
to the respondent No.2 is payable up to her marriage.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is the wife of
the petitioner and out of their wedlock two children have been born,
out of which the respondent No.2 is one of them. The marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on
16.05.2010 as per their rites and rituals. After sometime of marriage,
the dispute arose between the parties, and it is alleged that the
respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner for
demand of dowry and he started beating her. By the lapse of time,
the dispute between the parties became more severe and ultimately
on 18.06.2019, when the petitioner beat her, she lodged a report to
the police, but the police have not taken any action on her report.
She was being thrown out by the petitioner from her house along with
the respondent No.2 and the son of the respondent No.1, who is
elder to the respondent No.2, is with the petitioner.
3. Since the respondent No.1 was thrown out from her matrimonial
house and she is having no source of income, she filed an
application on 11.02.2020 under Section 125 of CRPC for grant of
monthly maintenance amount before the learned Family Court,
Raipur. In her application she averred that she is having no source of
income and facing hardship financially as well as mentally and she
3
depends upon the help of her relatives. The petitioner/husband is an
employee at GMR Factory and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is
having agricultural land in his village from which he is earning
sufficient amount and thus the petitioner/husband is having sufficient
source of income and capable to pay maintenance amount. He is
under legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and child and
she claimed total Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance amount.
4. By replying the application of the respondents, he denied the
averment of the application and have submitted that the behaviour of
the respondent No.1 with him and his parents was not good from the
very beginning. She had not given any respect to the elderly persons
of the family and she herself does not want to live with the petitioner
as the petitioner is the low paid employee in the factory. He informed
the behaviour of the respondent No.1 to her parents and despite their
efforts, she could not understand the situation and had not improved
her behaviour. She had lodged a false report against the petitioner
and considering the false allegation, the police has not registered any
offence against him. The respondent No.1 is working as Salesgirl in
the Prakash Saree Centre, Pandari, Raipur and earning Rs. 8000/-
per month and able and capable to earn her livelihood. The petitioner
is working as a Labourer in GMR Factory and hardly earn Rs. 6000/-
per month, in which his entire family including one child and his
parents are depends. The respondent No.1 is interested to live as
per her own whims. She is having suspicious activity of her character
for which she was also punished by the head of the community.
4
Since the respondent No.1 residing separately from the petitioner
without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
5. The learned Family Court framed issues and after recording evidence
of the parties and hearing them, passed the order on 17.07.2023 and
granted Rs. 6000/- to the respondent No.1/wife payable from the
date of application and Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No.2/daughter
payable from the date of application till her marriage. The said order
dated 17.07.2023 is under challenge in the present criminal revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent
No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause. There was
no reason to reside separately from the petitioner. He has not
committed any cruelty with her and never harassed her for demand
of dowry or for any other reason. The petitioner is a low paid
employee and earning Rs. 8000-9000/- per month, which reflects
from his bank account and salary slip, yet the learned Family Court
has granted excessive amount of maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per
month, which is too exorbitant for the petitioner. The petitioner is
having liability of their son and other family members. Despite his
efforts, she has not joined the company of the petitioner and residing
separately on her own will without any reason and earning sufficient
amount for her and her daughter. He would also submit that he is not
denying the maintenance, but in view of his monthly income, Rs.
8000/- per month is beyond his capacity to pay it to the respondents,
therefore, the impugned order of maintenance may be set aside or
the amount of maintenance may be reduced.
5
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner is earning Rs.
25,000/- from his employment and is capable to give maintenance of
Rs. 8000/- per month. The petitioner has submitted his old document
of his employment and his salary and presently, he is having
sufficient income to pay the maintenance. Looking to the present cost
of living, Rs. 8000/- is also on the lower side and the same is also not
paying regularly. The respondents are facing financial hardship and
depends upon her family members, therefore, there is no illegality in
the impugned order and the criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case and documents annexed with the petition.
9. The scope and object of Section 125 of CRPC has been considered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Anju Garg and
Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg‘ 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9 and 10 of its judgement has held
that:-
“9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony,
anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is
required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some
suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to
sustain herself and the children, as observed by this
Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors.
(2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after
6referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the
principle of law as to how the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court.
It held as under:
“In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC
624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that :
(SCC p. 631, para 16)
16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of
the Code], it must be remembered, are of a
summary nature and are intended to enable
destitute wives and children, the latter
whether they are legitimate or illegitimate,
to get maintenance in a speedy manner.”
8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v.
Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC
(Cri) 442] , while discussing about the basic
purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined
that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)
3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy
and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing,
and shelter to the deserted wife.”
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria
v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 762] , while adverting to the dominant
7
purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled
that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)
15. “… While dealing with the ambit and
scope of the provision contained in
Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne
in mind that the dominant and primary
object is to give social justice to the
woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and
to prevent destitution and vagrancy by
compelling those who can support those
who are unable to support themselves but
have a moral claim for support. The
provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy
remedy to those women, children and
destitute parents who are in distress. The
provisions in Section 125 are intended to
achieve this special purpose. The
dominant purpose behind the benevolent
provisions contained in Section 125 clearly
is that the wife, child and parents should
not be left in a helpless state of distress,
destitution and starvation.”
10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] ,
reiterating the legal position the Court held :
(SCC p. 320, para 6)
6. “… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of
social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children and as noted
8by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander
Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC
70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy
and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing and
shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect
to fundamental rights and natural duties of
a man to maintain his wife, children and
parents when they are unable to maintain
themselves. The aforesaid position was
highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya
v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 787].”
11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v.
Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC
(Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346] , it has been
stated that it is a piece of social legislation
which provides for a summary and speedy relief
by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable
to maintain herself and her children”.
10) This Court had made the above observations as
the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case
had conducted the proceedings without being alive to
the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the
provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an
impression has also been gathered by this Court in
9
the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded
the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty
of the husband to provide financial support to the
wife and to the minor children. The husband is
required to earn money even by physical labour, if he
is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation,
except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned
in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai2, it has been
held that the object of maintenance proceedings is
not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife,
by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a
speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125
Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children. It also falls
within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”
10. In the present case, the respondent No.1, who examined herself as
AW-1 before the learned Family Court has stated in her evidence as
per the averment made in the application under Section 125 of
CRPC. In cross-examination, he stated that prior to 2019, she has
not made any complaint to any police authority or any judicial
institution against the petitioner. She admitted that he has not filed
any document with respect to income of her husband. She admitted
that the photographs of Article A-1 and A-2 are her photograph and
photograph of Article A-3 is the photograph of Prakash Saree Centre,
but she denied that she is working there as Salesgirl. She voluntarily
stated that she had gone there along with her friends.
She further stated that she did not know about the occupation and
10
the nature of work of her husband. She denied that she is having
extramarital affairs with other persons. She also admitted that after
preliminary enquiry, the police has given the report of non-cognizable
offence on her complaint. It is not denied by the petitioner that the
respondents are his wife and child and they are residing separately
from him.
11. The respondent No.1 has got examined AW-2/Fekuram Verma as her
witness, who is her father. He also stated in his evidence that his
daughter was being harassed by the petitioner for demand of dowry
and ultimately thrown out from her house. He also denied that his
daughter is having relation with other persons. From the entire
evidence of this witness also, it comes that due to the harassment of
the petitioner, the respondents residing separately from him.
12. The petitioner has examined himself as NAW-1 and stated that the
behaviour of the respondent No.1 was not good with him and his
family members from the time of their marriage and she had not
given any respect to the elderly people of his family. She does not
want to reside with him and she on her own will and whims residing
separately without any sufficient reason. He has never harassed her
for any reason. He is earning about Rs. 6000/- per month as a
Labourer under a contractor in the GMR Factory. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that he has not named any specific person
with whom the respondent No.1 is having relation and also has not
given any specific instance of the same. He has also not made any
complaint to anywhere with respect to her conduct and behaviour. He
11
also admitted that in the photographs of Article A-1 to A-3, it has not
reflected that the same was the photographs of Prakash Saree
Sales.
13. The petitioner has also examined NAW-2/Thakur Ram Verma and
NAW-3/Kamta Verma, who stated in support of the petitioner.
14. From perusal of the materials and evidence produced by the parties,
it reflects that both the parties have made allegation and counter
allegation against each other, but their relationship have not been
denied. The learned Family Court after considering the entire
documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties,
comes into conclusion that there is a sufficient cause for the
respondent/wife to live separately from her husband/petitioner, which
is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no infirmity
or perversity, which dragged this Court to interfere with the same.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Sunita Kachhawaha
and Others v. Anil Kachhawaha’ AIR 2015 SC 554, has observed in
Para 8 of its order that:-
“8. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section
125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to
ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute
details of the matrimonial dispute between the
husband and wife need not be gone into. While so,
the High Court was not right in going into the
intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and
12the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife
on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore
she was not entitled to maintenance. Such
observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence
of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded
by the Family Court.”
16. While deciding the issue No.2, the learned Family Court after
considering the status of the parties and earning capacity of the
petitioner/husband as well as the respondent No.1/wife and also the
evidence produced by the parties with respect to their financial
position, granted Rs. 6000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife
and Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No.2/daughter. Considering the
present cost of living, the amount awarded to the respondents cannot
be said to be exorbitant or excessive. The submissions of the
petitioner/husband with respect to the fact that the respondent
No.1/wife is also earning by working as Salesgirl in a Saree Shop,
the object behind the right to maintenance is to be considered. It is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or
vagrancy on account of the failure of marriage and not as a
punishment to the other spouse. The sufficiency of the quantum has
to be adjudge, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with
reasonable comfort. In the matter of ‘Rajnesh v. Neha‘ 2021 (2) SCC
324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 78 to 84 that:-
“78. The factors which would weigh with the Court
inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children; whether
the Applicant is educated and professionally
13qualified; whether the Applicant has any independent
source of income; whether the income is sufficient to
enable her to maintain the same standard of living as
she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home;
whether the Applicant was employed prior to her
marriage; whether she was working during the
subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was
required to sacrifice her employment opportunities
for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking
after adult members of the family; reasonable costs
of litigation for a non-working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC
801 this Court held that the financial position of the
parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material
while determining the quantum of maintenance. An
order of interim maintenance is conditional on the
circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a
claim has no independent income, sufficient for her
or his support. It is no answer to a claim of
maintenance that the wife is educated and could
support herself. The court must take into
consideration the status of the parties and the
capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support.
Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations;
the Court should mould the claim for maintenance
based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the
husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for
his own maintenance, and dependent family members
whom he is obliged to maintain under the law,
14liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of
maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due
regard to the standard of living of the husband, as
well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of
living. The plea of the husband that he does not
possess any source of income ipso facto does not
absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if
he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between
all relevant factors. The test for determination of
maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the
financial status of the Respondent, and the standard
of living that the Applicant was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded
must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of
the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the
wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes
oppressive and unbearable for the Respondent, nor
should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be
adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself
with reasonable comfort.
82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance
with respect to the criteria for determining the
quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section
23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may
be taken into consideration: (i) position and status of
the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii)
if the Petitioner/claimant is living separately, the
15justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s
property and any income derived from such property,
(v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any
other source.
83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and/or the children must be adequate, fair,
reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living
to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in
her matrimonial home.
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v. Smt.
Saroj Hegde MANU/DE/1518/2007:140 (2007) DLT 16
laid down the following factors to be considered for
determining maintenance:
1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the
claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has
to maintain.
5 . The amount should aid the Applicant to live
in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home.
6. Non-Applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical attendance and treatment
etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
16
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while
estimating the income of the non-applicant
when all the sources or correct sources are not
disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.
11. The amount awarded Under Section 125
Code of Criminal Procedure is adjustable
against the amount awarded Under Section 24
of the Act.”
17. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Family Court has rightly considered the application of the
respondents and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to
them, which is payable from the date of application. No illegality or
perversity is found in the impugned order and therefore, the revision
petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved