Chattisgarh High Court
Hayat Tavil Shahi vs Smt. Summaiya Khatoon on 8 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16612
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 679 of 2024
Hayat Tavil Shahi Son Of Shri Syed Matinulhaq Aged About 41 Years
Resident Of Islampur, Post - Makhdumpur, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
versus
Smt. Summaiya Khatoon Wife Of Hayat Tavil Shahi Aged About 30 Years
Daughter Of Hafiz Firoz Ahmad, Resident Of Behind State Bank,
Manendragarh, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
08/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397
and 401 of CRPC against the impugned order dated 10.05.2024,
Digitally
signed by
passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.04.23
(C.G.), in MCRC No. 170 of 2021, whereby an amount of Rs.
16:52:15
+0530
220,000/- per month has been granted in favour of the respondent/
wife as maintenance amount, which is payable from the date of
application i.e. from 20.12.2021.
2. It is admitted fact in the case that the marriage between the parties
have been solemnized on 30.09.2015 at Manendragarh as per their
rites and rituals.
3. The brief facts of the case are that after the marriage, the
respondent/wife started residing at her matrimonial house at village
Islampur. At the time of their marriage, the parents of the
respondent/wife had given sufficient dowry articles to her. It is alleged
that the respondent/wife was being harassed by the
petitioner/husband and his family members for demand of dowry and
thereafter dispute between the parties started for one or other
reasons. The petitioner/husband is a Software Engineer and was in
job at Pune. He obtained divorce from his first wife. He regularly used
to take money from the respondent/wife. He also pressurized for
encashment of the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs and demanded
money from her. On 27.07.2016, she had gone to Bokaro, but none
of his family members have given any attention to her rather, they
started demanding money from her. Looking to their behaviour with
the respondent/wife, her father took her back to his house, where the
respondent/wife had lodged a report under Section 498-A of IPC
against the petitioner/husband and his family members. On
20.12.2021, the respondent/wife has filed an application under
Section 125 of CRPC for grant of monthly maintenance amount of
3
Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner/husband. It is averred in the
application that due to the harassment given by the
petitioner/husband and his family members; she is compelled to
reside separately. She is not having any source of income and is a
house maker. She is unable to maintain herself and studying for
fashion designing, whereas the petitioner/husband is employed as
Software Engineer at Hyderabad and earning Rs. 1,25,000/- per
month as his salary and therefore, she claimed Rs. 30,000/- per
month as maintenance amount.
4. Replying the application filed by the respondent/wife, the petitioner/
husband has averred in his reply that after the marriage, the
respondent/wife resided in her matrimonial house only for 15-20 days
and thereafter, she went back to her parents’ house. Whatever
articles given by the parents of the respondent/wife, has been given
by them as the gift articles at the time of marriage. The golden
ornaments, which the respondent/wife received at the time of
marriage are still with her. Since, the mother of the
petitioner/husband was admitted at Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, after
marriage ceremony of the brother of the petitioner/husband, they
came back to Ranchi for her care. Since, all the family members
were resided jointly, all the domestic works were also done by the
family members accordingly. The respondent/wife was not interested
in living with the petitioner/husband in the joint family and to create a
ground for separation, she disclosed that she received burn
injuries in her matrimonial house, whereas during the cooking of
food, the minor blisters were formed due to the hot oil. The
4
petitioner/husband had tried to keep her happy and spent huge
amount in their tourism. He also given lot of money to her for her
personal expenses. The petitioner/husband had invested amount in
Monetary Advisory Company from which the dividend was regularly
receiving by the respondent/wife up to 2019 and thereafter the said
company was closed without paying any amount to the depositors. It
is also averred that the respondent/wife has made false allegation
and he or his family members have never treated her with cruelty for
any reason. Had she been treated with cruelty, she must have lodged
report to the police, but she did nothing. The petitioner/husband or
his family members were not in knowledge that the respondent/wife
is having fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. The respondent/wife has
pressurized him to stay at Manendragarh in her parents’ house. It is
also averred that the respondent/wife had assured him that she will
come back after 15-20 days, when she was going with her father on
09.05.2016. After various efforts made by the petitioner/husband, the
respondent/wife came to him along with her parents on 27.07.2016.
At that time, the petitioner/husband had lost his job and then the
parents of the respondent/wife have insisted him to come to
Manendragarh and settle there. The respondent/wife and her parents
have continuously pressurized him to settle at Manendragarh and
when he refused for the same, the respondent/wife had lodged report
under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC. The petitioner/husband had tried
his level best to get the matter solved, but he could not succeed. The
respondent/wife has also get his bank account transferred to
Manendragarh/Chirmiri from Pune in the year 2016.
5
The respondent/wife is a fashion designer and earning more
than Rs.10,000/- per month from her job. She is also working in the
Rice Mill of her mother, from where she is earning Rs. 40,000/- per
month. Up to 2019, she got Rs. 10,000/- per month as dividend from
Monetary Advisory Company. By suppressing the income and
financial capacity of the respondent/wife, she has filed the application
for grant of monthly maintenance amount. The petitioner/husband is
having liability of his old aged parents and unmarried sister and
brother. He is residing at Hyderabad in a rented house and required
to spend huge amount in his domestic need. He has to spend huge
amount regularly in treatment of his parents. The respondent/wife is
residing separately without any sufficient cause and on her own will.
The petitioner/husband had filed an application at Bokaro Court for
restitution of conjugal rights, but the respondent/wife was not
appearing in the proceeding. The respondent/wife is able and
capable to earn her livelihood and earning more than Rs. 50,000/-
per month, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance and her
application is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording
evidence of the parties, passed the order on 10.05.2024 and
awarded Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife as
maintenance amount. The amount of maintenance payable from the
date of application i.e. 20.12.2021. The said order of maintenance is
under challenge in the present criminal revision.
6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the
learned Family Court has erred in considering the evidence available
on record. They should have considered that the respondent/wife has
not disclosed true facts before the learned Family Court and
suppressed the material facts. He would further submit that the
respondent/wife herself had filed a divorce petition before the learned
Family Court, Manendragarh and obtained divorce decree from the
petitioner/husband, which itself shows that she herself was not willing
to reside with the petitioner/husband. The learned Family Court has
not appreciated that the respondent/wife has suppressed the material
facts about her income, which she admitted in her evidence. The
parents of the respondent/wife are running a Rice Mill and also
holding immovable property and having sufficient source of income
for her maintenance. She also filed her income tax return, but the
same has not been produced before the learned Family Court and
therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the
petitioner/husband. From the evidence of the respondent/wife, no
cruelty has been found as the petitioner/husband and his family
members have been acquitted from the offence of Section 498-A/34
of IPC. The respondent/wife is having professional qualification of
fashion designing and earning sufficient for her own. The learned
Family Court has not appreciated the earning capacity of the
respondent/wife and erred in assessing the quantum of maintenance.
The respondent/wife is residing separately from her husband without
any sufficient cause and earning sufficient amount for herself,
therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The petitioner/
husband tried his level best to keep his wife with him and he also
7
filed an application at Bokaro for restitution of conjugal rights, despite
that the respondent/wife has not joined the company of the
petitioner/husband and she obtained decree of divorce, therefore, the
impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
wife vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner/husband and has submitted that the order passed
by the learned Family Court is just and proper. The respondent/wife
was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner/husband for demand of
dowry as well as pressurized her to encash the fixed deposit. When
the cruelty was unbearable, she lodged the report to the police, on
which the FIR for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was
registered against the petitioner/husband and his family members.
There may be acquittal from the offence alleged against the
petitioner/husband, but the respondent/wife has duly supported her
case. The decree of divorce was also granted in favour of the
respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty that she suffered by cruelty
committed by her husband/petitioner. There is no suppression of any
material facts in the case. She explained in her evidence that her
father had submitted the income tax return in her name also and the
Rice Mill is owned by her parents. It is the petitioner/husband, who
invested some money in Monetary Advisory Company, from which
some dividend was received by the respondent/wife, but
subsequently, the said company defrauded their depositors and fled
away. The amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which were kept in fixed deposit
8
were also of her parents’ money, which was encashed in the account
of her parents.
While residing with the petitioner/husband, she joined the
fashion designing course, but due to the dispute between the parties,
she could not complete her course. The respondent/wife is not
having any course of her income and dependent upon her parents.
Even when she has obtained divorce from her husband, she is
entitled for maintenance from him. He would also submit that it is the
legal and moral duty of the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife
and to provide proper assistance mentally as well as financially, but
he failed to do so, therefore, considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court has granted the
monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the
respondent/wife, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records
of the case and his revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
9. The first question arises for consideration would be, whether there is
sufficient reason for the respondent/wife to reside separately from
her husband or not.
10. The respondent/wife (AW-1) has stated in her evidence that at the
time of marriage her parents have deposited Rs. 10 Lakhs in the
fixed deposit in her name. She was being pressurized by her
husband and his family members to get it realized in their account. In
9
the month of October 2015, her husband left her in her matrimonial
house and had gone to Pune in his job. Her mother-in-law and sister-
in-law regularly teasing her on the issue of dowry and asked her to
bring more dowry from her parents, even they have not provided
proper medical treatment, when she received burn injuries on her
thumb. She called her parents and had gone to Manendragarh and
get treatment from there. Thereafter, she had gone to Pune to her
husband, where also he pressurized her for encashment of fixed
deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. At that time, his behaviour was very rude
and he also taunting her for various reasons. The petitioner/husband
was demanded money from her and asked to bring money from her
parents and when she refused to do so, he assaulted her. On
27.07.2016 also, she had gone to Bokaro, but looking to the
behaviour of her in-laws, her parents took her back to Manendragarh
and thereafter on making various efforts, her report has been
registered in the FIR on 29.01.2017. She is residing with her parents
since May 2016 and during her stay at her parents’ house, the
petitioner/husband neither taken any care of her nor provided any
maintenance amount. She is a student of fashion designing and the
petitioner/husband is a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and having
monthly income of Rs. 1,25,000/- and she is required an amount of
Rs. 30,000/- per month towards her maintenance.
In cross-examination, she admitted that she has lodged a case
against the petitioner/husband under the provisions of Domestic
Violence Act, in which she alleged that the petitioner/husband
demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs from her. She also admitted that she has
10
lodged a report against cruelty for demand of dowry, in which she
alleged that the petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs. She
further admitted that in both the cases, she alleged that the
petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs after coming to her house.
She also admitted that in the present case, she alleged that the
petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs. It is also admitted by
her that she has not filed any document with respect to the income of
her husband. She further admitted that prior to lodging of the report
of dowry case, the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs has already been
encashed, which was deposited in the account of her mother. She
explained that when she was residing in her matrimonial house, her
in-laws and her husband pressurized her for encashment of said
fixed deposit. Since, it was not asked by her in the dowry case, she
has not disclosed in her statement about the same. She further
stated that on 05.08.2016, she has lodged report at Manendragarh
Police Station, but she has not filed any document of the same. She
denied that she has completed her fashion designing course and
earning from fashion designing profession.
She admitted that earlier also she had filed an application for
grant of maintenance amount, in which she disclosed that she is the
student of fashion designing course. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
she could not complete her course and thereafter she met with an
accident and could not complete her fashion designing course. She
rejoined in the month of March 2022. When she was asked that in
her affidavit, she has not disclosed about her income, she replied
11
that when she is not having any income, then there is no question of
any disclosure of her income.
She also stated in her cross-examination that her mother had
opened a Rice Mill at Bhopal in the year 2017 and due to a huge loss
in the Rice Mill, it is closed. She admitted that her income tax return
is filled up by her father. She admitted that she has not disclosed her
entire bank account details in her affidavit submitted in the Court.
She further stated that her bank account was being used by her
father in his business and therefore, he used to fill up the income tax
return in her name. She also denied that she herself did not want to
go to her matrimonial house at Bokaro. The petitioner/husband had
never tried to keep her with him or has not made any effort for
settlement. Even, he has not contacted with her or her parents.
Although, she admitted that the petitioner/husband had filed an
application for restitution of conjugal rights at Bokaro and after one or
two occasions, she could not appear there, because she was unable
to go to Bokaro alone, as her father and brother were at Bhopal at
that time. She admitted that she is residing separately from her
husband since last 06 years. In the month of August 2016, she has
got her bank account transferred from Pune to Manendragarh. She
shown her ignorance that her husband had deposited Rs. 2 Lakhs in
her name in IMA Company. The dispute arose between them for the
reason of encashment of the fixed deposit and harassment with
respect to demand of dowry from her. She further denied that her
husband had made efforts to get the matter settled, but she refused
to go with him. She denied in her cross-examination that, she was
12
having love affair with another boy and used to WhatsApp chatting
with him, for that reason she wanted to reside at Manendragarh.
11. The petitioner/husband has stated in his evidence that after
sometime of marriage, he left his wife in her matrimonial house and
went back to his job at Pune. Her mother underwent a surgery of her
leg and she needs care, but the respondent/wife was not willing to
reside there to take care of her mother and she returned back on
26.10.2015 along with her parents. She came to Pune on
20.11.2015. They used to go to Bokaro on some occasion and
unfortunately in the month of April 2016, due to lay-off of the
company, the petitioner/husband lost his job and at that time, his wife
went back to her parents’ house. The respondent/wife was working in
the Rice Mill of her mother, even before her marriage. They tried to
keep him in their house as Ghar-Jamaai, but he refused and returned
back to Bokaro. On 27.07.2016, on their call, the respondent/wife
and her parents came to Bokaro and again insisted to come to
Manendragarh and settle there. Thereafter, he moved an application
at Bokaro for restitution of conjugal rights. When the respondent/wife
and her parents came to know about the proceeding at Bokaro, they
threatened him that if he will not withdraw the case, they will rope him
in a false case of dowry and when he has not withdrawn his case, the
respondent/wife lodged report to the police at Manendragarh for the
offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
During the mediation proceeding at Bokaro, the respondent/
wife had not appeared and since the dowry case has also been
13
registered, no order would be passed in Family Court, Bokaro in the
proceeding initiated by the petitioner/husband. He further stated that
when the respondent/wife was residing with him, he transferred
money in her account on various occasions. When he lost his job, he
received certain money from his company, which was invested in IMA
Company from which Rs. 10,000/- per month came as dividend in the
bank account of the respondent/wife.
The respondent/wife has got her bank account transferred in
the month of August 2016 from Pune to Manendragarh. She has
completed her fashion designing course from Bhopal and she is
managing the Rice Mill at Manendragarh, from where she is earning
more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. He is a Software Developer at
Hyderabad and after deductions, he is receiving Rs. 96,000/- per
month. In support of his defence, he relied upon the documents
(exhibit D-1 to D-21).
In cross-examination, he admitted that the respondent/wife is
his second wife. Divorce has taken place from his first wife. He
admitted that his first wife had also lodged a harassment report at
South-East Delhi in the year 2021. He admitted that his father is a
retired employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and he is having their own
house at Bokaro. He denied that he has threatened the
respondent/wife for demand of dowry or for any other reason. He
also denied that he or his family members had pressurized the
respondent/wife for encashment of fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. He
denied every suggestion about the cruelty and harassment given by
14
him and his family members to the respondent/wife. He admitted that
the Rice Mill at Manendragarh is owned by the parents of the
respondent/wife. He voluntarily stated that the Rice Mill which was
opened at Bhopal in the year 2017, is presently closed. He admitted
that he has not filed any document with respect to treatment of his
mother. His gross pay is Rs. 1,21,000/- per month. He admitted that
since there was dowry case pending, therefore, he had not tried to
bring her back with him. What is the ultimate outcome of the
application (exhibit D-14), he has not filed any document with that
respect.
12. Except from these two witnesses i.e. the petitioner/husband (NAW-1)
and respondent/wife (AW-1), there is no other evidence led by the
parties. There are allegations and counter allegations against each
other with respect to their act and conduct during the matrimonial life.
Their marriage as well as the decree of divorce obtained by the
respondent/wife is not in dispute in the present case. From perusal of
the evidence of the parties, it transpires that when the
respondent/wife was residing at Pune with the petitioner/husband,
there was quarrel between them and the respondent/wife has made
allegation that the petitioner/husband demanded money from her and
asked to get the fixed deposit encashed. He used to assault her and
then, she came back to Manendragarh from Pune. On 27.07.2016,
when the respondent/wife again went to Bokaro, she was again
asked to get the fixed deposit encashed by her in-laws and
considering their conduct, her father took her back with him to
Manendragarh and ultimately on 05.08.2016, the police report has
15
been lodged. From the evidence, it clearly reflects that the victim is
residing at her parents’ house and separately from her husband due
to the harassment given by the petitioner/husband to her. A copy of
the decree of divorce has also been annexed in the present appeal
memo as Annexure A-2 and from perusal of the said judgement and
decree, it reflects that the decree of divorce was granted in favour of
the respondent/wife on the ground that the husband has failed to
provide maintenance and neglected her for two years, which is a
ground for divorce as provided under Section 2(ii) of the Dissolution
of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, which has been proved by the
respondent/wife and on the ground of cruelty, a decree has been
passed in her favour, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned
trial Court that the respondent/wife is having sufficient cause to
reside separately from her husband, is based on proper appreciation
of evidence and I also in agreement with the said finding.
13. 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
16Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. 1.
This Court in the said case, after referring 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.” 1 (2015)
6 SCC 353
17
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
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)
18
6. “… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of
social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children and as noted
by 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
19
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
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.”
14. In the matter, the petitioner/husband cross-examined the respondent/
wife that in the proceeding under Section 498-A of IPC and the
proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent/wife
alleged the demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs, whereas in the present case, she
made allegations about demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs and thus there is
material discrepancies in the allegations at different proceedings,
which makes the evidence of the respondent/wife suspicious. The
respondent/wife in her evidence in Para 7 has explained the said
discrepancies that when the petitioner/husband lost his job, he came
20
to Manendragarh and asked for encashment of the fixed deposit,
which was refused by the respondent/wife and then, he demanded
Rs. 5 Lakhs from the respondent/wife and asked her to bring the
same from her father and thus she has duly explained the said
discrepancies in the allegations made by her. Even the said
discrepancies is trivial in nature, which can be keep aside in the
summery proceeding of Section 125 of CRPC.
15. The other defence taken by the petitioner/husband that he has been
acquitted from the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and the
cruelty has not been proved against him, therefore, the
respondent/wife is not entitled for any maintenance as she could not
able to prove the cruelty against her. From perusal of the judgment
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh
(exhibit D-15), it is quite vivid that the petitioner/husband has been
acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, even if the petitioner/husband
has been acquitted from the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, in
the opinion of this Court the same cannot be a ground to deny the
maintenance to the respondent/wife.
16. In the matter of “Narender @ Kala v. Sunita” reported in 2016 SCC
Online P&H 7608, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in
Para 12 that:-
“12. Acquittal of the petitioner and his family
members in dowry demand case is no ground to deny
maintenance to the wife and the child. The petitioner
cannot be absolved of his liability to maintain the wife
and the child on this score. The case in hand is
21required to be decided on the preponderance of
probabilities and no strict standard of proof is
required to be proved.”
17. The petitioner/husband has further defended his case on the ground
that the respondent/wife has suppressed material facts about her
income and occupation in the present case. In the evidence, the
respondent/wife has explained that at the time of her marriage, her
parents have given the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which has
been encashed in the bank account of her mother. Her income tax
return was filled up by her father in the course of business of his Rice
Mill, which normally happens in the family of persons having
business in order to save taxes. She also explained that her fashion
designing course remain incomplete due to COVID-19 Pandemic and
subsequently she continued the same. She admitted the suggestion
given by the defence that the Rice Mill of Bhopal is presently closed
due to loss. She also explained that the amount deposited by the
petitioner/husband in Monetary Advisory Company has also lost as
the company itself has fled away.
18. The petitioner/husband has admitted in his evidence in Para 12 that
he is a Software Developer at Hyderabad and after deduction, he is
receiving monthly salary of Rs. 96,000/-. Although the petitioner/
husband has stated that he is having liability of his old aged father
and younger brother, but he is equally liable to maintain his wife as
per his own status. Further, in the Civil Suit No. 111-A/2022, a decree
of divorce has been passed in favour of the respondent/wife by the
Family Court, Manendragarh vide its judgment and decree dated
22
10.05.2024 and the same was passed on the basis of cruelty to wife
by the petitioner/husband, which further strengthen the case of the
respondent/wife that she is having sufficient cause for residing
separately from her husband as she was subjected to cruelty by him.
19. The another defence taken by the petitioner/husband that the
respondent/wife is having professional qualification of fashion
designing course and earning sufficient amount for her livelihood and
therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. 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 qualified;
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 34 this Court held
that the financial position of the parents of the
applicant-wife, would not be material while
23determining 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,
liabilities 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
24matrimonial 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
justification 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 laid down the following factors to be
considered for determining maintenance :
25
“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.
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 Cr.PC
is adjustable against the amount awarded under
Section 24 of the Act.”
26
20. In the case at hand, it is apparent from the impugned order that the
learned Family Court taking note of social and financial status of both
the parties, in particular income of the petitioner/husband and the
financial condition of the respondent/wife and also in view of the
evidence came on record passed the order granting maintenance of
Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. When a provision has
already been made for providing maintenance to the deserted wife,
certainly the same has to be followed. Considering the present cost
of living, the amount awarded to the respondent/wife cannot be said
to be exorbitant or excessive. 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 adjudged, so that the wife is
able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
21. In the matter of ‘Sunita Kachhawaha and Others v. Anil
Kachhawaha’ AIR 2015 SC 554, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 the respondent and
observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the
matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled
27to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court
overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the
factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court. ”
22. From perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
evidence available on record as well as the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts governing the
field, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to upset the well-
reasoned findings of the learned Family Court granting maintenance
to the respondent/wife and there is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court.
23. Consequently, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
[ad_1]
Source link