1.00. RULE.
1.01. So far as the Criminal Revision Application No.
259 of 2011 is concerned, and Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State and Mr.Aftabhusen Ansari, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 husband – minor daughter.
1.02. So far as the Criminal Revision Application No. 487 of 2011 is concerned, Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State and Mr.R.M. Chauhan, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 husband – original opponent.
2.00. As common question of facts and law arise and as such they can be said to be Cross-Revision Applications challenging the very Judgement and Order passed by the Family Court, both these Revision Applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.
2.01. Criminal Revision Application No.259 of 2011 has been preferred by the petitioner - husband – original opponent to quash and set aside the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1927 of 2009 dtd. 27/4/2011, by which the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner - husband to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2500/- per month to the minor daughter towards their maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the date of application i.e. 6/8/2009, with cost of Rs.1500/-.
2.02. Criminal Revision Application No.487 of 2011 has been preferred by the petitioners - wife and minor daughter – original applicants challenging the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1927 of 2009 dtd. 27/4/2011, by which the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad has awarded a total sum of Rs.7500/- per month towards maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against their claim of Rs.15,000 per month, from the date of application i.e. 6/8/2009, with cost of Rs.1500, for enhancement of the maintenance.
3.00. That the original applicants – wife and minor daughter filed Criminal Misc.Application No. 1927 of 2009 against the husband – original opponent petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 259 of 2011, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the wife and Rs.5000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor daughter, who at the relevant time was aged 9 years.
4.00. It was the case on behalf of the original applicant that the original opponent – husband deserted her them without any reasonable cause and she was illtreated. It was also the case on behalf of the original applicants that the opponent husband is having three Plastic Factories at Gandhinagar and has even given on lease one factory at GIDC Sector No.25 at the monthly rent of Rs.20,000. It was also the case on behalf of the original applicants that the monthly income of the husband is Rs.2,00,000/- per month. It was also the case on behalf of the original applicants that looking to the status of the husband and his family members, it was requested to award in all Rs.15,000 per month towards the maintenance.
4.01. On the other hand, the husband denied his income at Rs.2,00,000/- per month. However, did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his income. It was also the case on behalf of the husband that as such factories at Gandhinagar belong to his father in which he is serving as Sales Manager and getting salary of Rs.3000/- per month only.
4.02. It is to be noted that in the cross-examination the husband has admitted that his father has two factories since last 10 years and he is serving as a Sales Manager in the said factories since last three years, however, he did not produce any evidence in support his case to show his income.
4.03. That the learned trial court on appreciation of evidence and considering the status of the husband and his family, determined the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month and has awarded Rs.5000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2500/- to the minor daughter, towards their maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the date of application i.e. w.e.f. 6/8/2009, with cost of Rs.1500/-.
4.04. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.Application No. 1927 of 2009 dtd.27/4/2011, original opponent – husband has preferred Criminal Revision Application No.259 of 2011 for reduction of the maintenance and the original applicants – wife and minor have preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 487 of 2011 for enhancement of the maintenance.
5.00. Mr.R.M. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband - original opponent has vehemently submitted that the learned Family Court has materially erred in considering the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month. It is submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Judge has materially erred in considering the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has arrived at the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month on presumption, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6.00. On the other hand, Mr.Ansari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicants – wife and minor daughter has submitted that as such the respondent husband has tried to mislead the Court by not disclosing his actual income and has, as such, not produced any documentary evidence to show his income. It is submitted that on the contrary the husband has tried to mislead the Court by submitting that his income is Rs.3000 per month only that too by serving in the factories of his own father and even according to the husband, he was serving as a Sales Manager since last three years in the factories of his father. Therefore, it is submitted that as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Family Court in considering the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month, considering the status of the husband and his family members, more particularly considering the fact that the father of the husband is a very reputed person, having three factories at Gandhinagar and is a political leader in the rulling party - Bhartiya Janata Party and Chairman of Ati Pachhat Jan-Jati Board, State of Gujarat. It is submitted by Mr.Ansari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the wife and minor daughter – original applicants that even considering the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month, the learned Family Court ought to have awarded in all Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and minor daughter towards their maintenance.
7.00. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original applicants has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807; in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SCW 1601; as well as decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530; in the case of Sushilaben Mohanlal Vs. Mali Chunilal Hargovind & Anr. reported in 1991(1) GLH 342; as well as the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntla Vs. Rattan Lal, reported in 1981 Cri.LJ 1420 1420 as well as decision of this Court in Special Criminal Application No.2462 of 2010 in support of their prayer to enhance the amount of maintenance.
8.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
9.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the husband - original opponent has tried to mislead the Court by submitting that his income is Rs.3000 per month only that too in serving in the factories of his own father as a Sales Manager and has concealed his real income and has not produced any evidence to show his income. It is not in dispute that the father of the husband has three factories at Gandhinagar and two Plastic Factories since last 10 years and even according to the husband, as admitted in his cross-examination, he is serving as a Sales Manager in the two factories of his father since last two years. Under the circumstances, it is not believable at all that the income of the husband is Rs.3000/- only as contended by the husband. It is also required to be noted at this stage that the husband – original opponent has not produced any document / material to show his income. It is also required to be noted that the family of the husband is a reputed family in the society and apart from the fact that the father of the husband has three factories at Gandhinagar, he is a social worker and he is in politics affiliated with the Party in Power – Bhartiya Janata Party in the State. The father of the husband is also a Chairman in Ati Pachhat Jan-Jati Board, State of Gujarat. Even this Court has also called upon the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband to produce Income Tax Returns of the husband as well as father of the husband so that the real income can be known. However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband has not produced the same even for the perusal of this Court and thereby has concealed the income of the husband. Undisputedly the husband is bound to maintain his wife and minor daughter – original applicants.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and when the husband has tried to mislead the Court by concealing his real income and not disclosing his income and contending that his income is only Rs.3000 per month which as stated hereinabove cannot be believed and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the status of the husband and his family in the society, when the learned Family Court has considered the income of the husband at Rs.20,000 per month, has directed the petitioner husband to pay Rs.5000 per month to the wife and Rs.2500 per month to the minor daughter towards their maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of application i.e. 6/8/2009 and has awarded cost, it cannot be said that any error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned Family Court and hence interference of this Court is not warranted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Under the circumstances the Criminal Revision Application No.259 of 2011 filed by the husband deserves to be dismissed.
Now, so far as the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the wife and minor daughter – original applicant for enhancement of the maintenance is concerned, it appears that even if the income of the husband – original opponent is considered at Rs.20,000/- per month, in that case also, considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and considering the fact that there are three members in the family i.e. husband, wife and minor daughter, as individual unit (in all three units) and considering the inflation, price rise and value of money, wife and minor daughter – original applicants are entitled to at least Rs.10,000 per month towards their maintenance.
10.00. 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.
11.00. 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.
12.00. 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).
13.00. 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.
14.00. 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.
15.00. 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.”
16.00. In view of the above, Criminal Revision Application No.259 of 2011 filed by the husband – original opponent deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged so far as Criminal Revision Application No.259 of 2011 is concerned.
It is also required to be noted that even in Criminal Revision Application No.259 of 2011 filed by the husband – original opponent, Court issued notice considering the request made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband – original opponent to explore the possibility of settlement, as it is matrimonial dispute. However, unfortunately efforts for settlement have not been materialised and settlement could not be arrived at.
Criminal Revision Application No. 487 of 2011 preferred by the wife and minor daughter – original applicants, is partly allowed the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1927 of 2009 dtd.27/4/2011, is hereby modified to the extent enhancing amount of maintenance of the wife – original applicant No.1 from Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/- per month and enhancing amount of maintenance of the minor daughter – original applicant No.2 from Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per month, and accordingly the husband – original opponent is hereby directed to pay in all Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month to the wife and minor daughter – original applicants towards their maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of application i.e. 6/8/2009. The arrears to be paid accordingly within a period of four months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent so far as Criminal Revision Application No.487 of 2011 is concerned.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik