1. The present Criminal Revision Application u/s.397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant – minor daughter through her mother to modify the impugned judgement and order dated 04/10/2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. (Maintenance) Application No.425 of 2008 (Old Maintenance Application No.17 of 2006) to the extent of quantum of amount of maintenance and to enhance the amount of maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,500/- per month awarded by learned Family Court, Surat.
2. That the applicant herein (daughter of respondent No.2 herein) through her mother submitted Maintenance Application No.17 of 2006 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat for her maintenance u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. Thereafter, on establishment of the Family Court at Surat, the said case was transferred to learned Family Court, Surat being Criminal Misc. (Maintenance) Application No.425 of 2008.
It was the case on behalf of the applicant that her father is serving as Assistant Professor in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat. Therefore, it was submitted that she is entitled to get maintenance as per status of her father. Therefore, it was claimed at Rs.10,000/- per month.
The said application was opposed by respondent No.2 herein – father by submitting that mother of the applicant is Physiotherapist and her income is Rs.20,000/- per month and she is also earning some more amount by visiting the Private Doctors/Hospitals. Therefore, it is submitted that as the mother of the applicant has sufficient income, it was requested to dismiss the application. On appreciation of evidence and considering the pay/salary slip of the father at the relevant time i.e. August,2010, his gross salary was Rs.56,757/- and after deduction of Rs.11,725/- towards Income Tax, Professional Tax, etc., learned Family Court found the income of original opponent – father at Rs.45,000/- per month and consequently, learned Family Court awarded maintenance to the applicant - minor at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month.
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order dated 04/10/2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. (Maintenance) Application No.425 of 2008 awarding maintenance to the applicant - minor daughter at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month, the applicant herein has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application u/s.397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Ms.Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein has vehemently submitted that father of the applicant is serving as Assistant Professor in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat and even gross salary of respondent No.2 in January,2010 was Rs.52,339/- and his net salary was Rs.40,182/-. It is submitted that as such deduction of G.P.F. and V.P.F. comes to Rs.6,284/-, which is required to be considered in the income of the father while awarding maintenance to the daughter. It is submitted that gross salary of respondent No.2 in January,2011 was Rs.81,200/- and his net salary was Rs.62,590/-, after deduction of Rs.7,640/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F. It is further submitted that gross salary of respondent No.2 in January,2012 was Rs.90,140/- and his net salary was Rs.66,669/-, after deduction of Rs.7,780/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F., which is required to be considered in income of respondent No.2 while considering the amount to be awarded to the applicant towards her maintenance.
4. Ms.Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon the following decisions in support of her submissions that the applicant is entitled to get maintenance as per status of the family and her father and if she should have stayed with respondent No.2 – father.
5. Ms.Hina Desai, learned advocate has appeared on respondent No.2 – father and has produced on record xerox copies of salary slips of January,2010; January,2011 and January,2012, which are directed to be taken on record. She has vehemently submitted that mother of the applicant – wife of respondent No.2 is earning very well and is well placed in the Society and she is able to manage the maintenance of the applicant. She has also submitted that as such respondent No.2 – father has liability of old aged parents and he is required to maintain them also. She has fairly conceded that respondent No.2 herein – father cannot absolve from the liability to give maintenance to the applicant - daughter. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when mother of the applicant is having sufficient income and is earning more than Rs.3 Lacs per year and considering the fact that respondent No.2 has liability of old aged parents, learned Family Court has not committed any error in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month to the applicant. She has also requested to direct the mother of the applicant to give xerox copy of the fees paid to the School and result of the applicant for his own satisfaction. She has also requested that respondent No.2 be permitted to have visitation right once in a week.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgement and order passed by learned Family Court, Surat awarding maintenance to the applicant – minor daughter at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month only from respondent No.2 – father. It is not in dispute that father is serving as Assistant Professor in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology at Surat. It is not in dispute that in January,2010 gross salary of respondent No.2 was 52,339/- and net salary was Rs.40182/- (after deduction of Rs.6,284/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F.). It is not in dispute that in January,2011 gross salary of respondent No.2 – father was Rs.81,200/- and net salary was Rs.62,590/- (after deduction of Rs.7,640/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F. over and above Income Tax, Professional Tax, etc.). It is not in dispute that in January,2012 gross salary of respondent No.2 was Rs.90,140/- and net salary was Rs.66,669/- (after deduction of Rs.7,780/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F. over and above deduction of Income Tax, Professional Tax, etc.).
7. As per decision of this Court reported in 2007(3) GLR 2581, any amount deducted towards G.P.F. is required to be included in the income while considering the amount to be awarded towards maintenance as the same can be said to be the savings.
7.1. In the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect woman and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.
7.2. In the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SCW 1601, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and has further observed that the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.
7.3. Subsequently both the aforesaid decisions came to be considered in the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 and in para 5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 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 and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503).
7.4. In the case of Sushilaben Mohanlal v. Mali Chunilal Hargovind & Anr. reported in 1991(1) GLH 342 the learned Single Judge has observed that word “maintenance” occurring in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses and other expenses related to the normal pursuits of life and while considering the quantum of maintenance these aspects have to be borne in mind. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge in the said decision that while fixing quantum of maintenance value of the rupee is also required to be borne in mind. It is observed by the learned Single Judge that Court cannot be oblivious to the hard fact about the real value of rupee while fixing the quantum of maintenance along with circumstances.
7.5. As observed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntla v. Rattan Lal reported in 1981 Cri.LJ 1420 1420 while considering the application of wife for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would not be enough that wife should be paid minimum amount to just somehow exist under the sun. It is observed that standard of living of parties must also be taken into consideration.
7.6. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.2462 of 2010 and after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in para 5.7 this Court has observed and held as under:
“Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court the following principle emerge what required to be considered while considering the application of the wife and/ or children for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (A)The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.
(B).The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow.
(C).Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It is meant to achieve a social purpose.
(D). It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. (E).Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient and that she is unable to maintain herself.
(F).Even if it is found that the wife is earning or having some income to survive somehow, that is not sufficient to rule out of application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it has to be established that from the amount she earned she is able to maintain herself. (G).While considering the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while awarding the maintenance, what is to be applied is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband and it should be consistent with status of a family.
(H).While considering the award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the “maintenance” includes food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses and other expenses related to the normal pursuits of life and while considering the quantum of maintenance these aspects have to be borne in mind.
(I).While considering the quantum of maintenance, price rise, value of the rupee is also required to be borne in mind.”
8. Therefore, considering the fact that respondent No.2 - father is serving as Assistant Professor in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology at Surat and in January,2010 gross salary of respondent No.2 was 52,339/- and net salary was Rs.40182/- (after deduction of Rs.6,284/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F.); in January,2011 gross salary of respondent No.2 – father was Rs.81,200/- and net salary was Rs.62,590/- (after deduction of Rs.7,640/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F. over and above Income Tax, Professional Tax, etc.); in January,2012 gross salary of respondent No.2 was Rs.90,140/- and net salary was Rs.66,669/- (after deduction of Rs.7,780/- towards G.P.F. and V.P.F. over and above deduction of Income Tax, Professional Tax, etc.), it cannot be disputed that every daughter is entitled to get maintenance considering the status of her father and parents.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is required to be considered by this Court whether the amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court, Surat at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month to the applicant, can be said to be a reasonable and adequate compensation looking to the income of respondent No.2 - father and his status.
9. It is the case on behalf of respondent No.2 that mother of the applicant is Physiotherapist and is earning approximately Rs.3 Lacs per year and, therefore, learned Judge has not committed any error and/or illegality in awarding Rs.5,500/- per month to the applicant towards her maintenance. Merely because mother is earning some amount, by that itself father cannot absolve from his liability to give maintenance to his daughter. Whatever amount is earned by the mother will go towards her maintenance. Still the liability of respondent No.2 – father to give maintenance to the daughter as per his status will still be there. If it is found that wife is having sufficient income, it can be good ground to deny maintenance to her but no ground while considering amount of maintenance to be paid to the children. As stated hereinabove, at the relevant time, the applicant has claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month only. Under the circumstances, considering the income/salary of respondent No.2 – father referred to hereinabove and considering the principles to be considered while awarding amount of maintenance and looking to the status and family of respondent No.2 – father and even the mother, the applicant would be entitled at least Rs.10,000/- per month. Under the circumstances, impugned judgement and order deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
10. Now so far as request made by respondent No.2 to meet her daughter and have visitation right once in a week and to give him xerox copy of the result of the applicant- minor daughter and xerox copy of fees paid to the School are concerned, though the aforesaid is not to be considered in the proceedings u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ms.Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, under the instructions from mother of the applicant – wife of respondent No.2, has stated at the bar that respondent No.2 shall be permitted to visit the applicant – daughter at her residence on every 2nd and 4th Sunday at the time, which have been mutually agreed between the parties. However, both father and mother shall see to it that no inconvenience is caused to the applicant – daughter. Ms.Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that xerox copy of the school fees/tuition fees of the applicant shall be given to respondent No.2 as well as xerox copy of the result of the applicant shall also be given to respondent No.2.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision Application succeeds. The impugned judgement and order dated 04/10/2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. (Maintenance) Application No.425 of 2008 is hereby modified to the extent directing respondent No.2 herein to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant towards her maintenance from the date of application. Arrears of maintenance shall be cleared by respondent No.2 – father within a period of three months by three equal monthly installments commencing from 01/10/2012. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties are directed to see that statements made by them, as recorded hereinabove, shall be complied with in its true spirit. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti