Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 824 of 2020 Revisionist :- Ivij Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this criminal revision, revisionist-applicant has challenged the order dated 13.12.2019, by which application under Section 125 CrPC has been allowed and the revisionist-applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance from the date of filing of application i.e. 27.02.2017.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that the revisionist-applicant is working as a labourer, as such, he has limited means and is unable to provide maintenance fixed by the court to his wife and as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eye of law being too excessive.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist- applicant, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has observed as under :-
It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity or apparent error.
Present criminal revision being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Nadim