1.0 Rule. Shri Joshi, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the application is taken up for final hearing today.
2.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant wife to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 7.10.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2011, by which the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 herein husband and modifying the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 10.8.2011 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1538 of 2010 by which the learned trial Court awarded Rs.23000/ towards maintenance of applicant wife and three minor children and reducing the same and awarding a total sum of Rs.16,000/ per month.
3.0 The facts leading to the present Criminal Revision Application in nutshell are as under:
3.1. That the applicant herein has initiated the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the respondent no.1 husband in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) being Domestic Violence Case NO.1538 of 2010. That in the said Criminal Case the applicant submitted application Exh.14 for interim maintenance/ alimony for herself as well as for three minor children. It was the case on behalf of the applicant that respondent husband is serving as Deputy Collector in the State of Gujarat and his total income per month is Rs. 80,000/ to Rs. 90,000/. It was also the case on behalf of the applicant that respondent husband is the owner of two bungalows in the posh area in the Ahmedabad City. It was also the case on behalf of the applicant that the respondent husband has also other movable and immovable properties and even is having bond of Rs.27 lacs and is earning interest on the same. It was also the case on behalf of the applicant that out of three children one Daughter Dimple is studying in Tamilnadu and the monthly expenses is Rs.12000/ per month. It was also submitted that the second daughter namely Ashuta is studying in 5th Standard in Delhi Public School, Ahmedabad and son Parthiv is also studying in 4th Standard in Delhi Public School, Ahmedabad and their education and other expenditure is more than Rs.15000/ per month. Therefore, it was submitted that in all the applicant is required to incur the expenditure of Rs.37,000/ per month and therefore, it was requested to grant interim relief towards maintenance considering the income of the respondent husband and considering his status in the life serving as Deputy Collector in the State of Gujarat.
3.2. That the said application was opposed by respondent no.1 husband by submitting that after deduction his net monthly salary is Rs.33000/ only and as he has to maintain his parents also. It was requested to award interim alimony/ maintenance considering his monthly income of Rs.48,860/ only. That looking to the status of the respondent no.1 husband as a Deputy Collector and his income as Deputy Collector and life which was lived by the wife and three children which they were living at the time when the applicant and the respondent no.1 separated, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) by order dated 10.8.2011 partly allowed the said application awarding Rs.8000/ per month towards interim relief/ interim maintenance to the wife and Rs.5000/ per month to each of the three minor children i.e. in all Rs.23,000/ per month from 27.9.2010.
3.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed below Exh.14 in Criminal Case No.1538 of 2010 awarding Rs.23,000/ per month towards maintenance of wife and the three children, respondent herein no.1 husband preferred Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2011 before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) and learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) has modified the order passed by the learned trial Court awarding Rs.23000/ per month towards maintenance to the wife and three minor children and has reduced the same to Rs.16000/ per month considering the income of the respondent husband at Rs.48,631/ per month.
3.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 7.10.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2011 reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.23000/ to Rs.16000/ per month towards maintenance of the wife and three minor children, the applicant wife has preferred present Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.0 Shri Sunil Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in reducing the amount of maintenance to the wife and three minor children considering the monthly income of respondent husband at Rs.48,860/ only. It is submitted that considering the decision of this Court in the case of Pratibha Dineshkumar Vania & Anr vs. State of Gujarat & Anr reported in 2007(3) GLR 2581 deduction of GPF etc is to be considered in the income of the husband while awarding maintenance, as the same can be said to be the savings and therefore, the same is required to be considered while awarding maintenance. It is further submitted that considering the salary of the respondent husband as Deputy Collector in the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat at Rs. 57028/ (July 2012) and deducting the compulsory deduction towards Professional Tax, Income Tax and Group Insurance the income of the respondent husband was required to be considered at Rs.55000/ per month and considering the same the learned Appellate Court ought to have rejected the appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court awarding a sum of Rs.23000/ towards maintenance to applicant wife and three minor children.
4.1. Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions the wife and the children are entitled to maintenance considering the status of the husband/father and in the same in the position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband / father.
4.2. Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant has heavily relied upon the decision of in the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 as well as decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sushilaben Mohanlal v. Mali Chunilal Hargovind & Anr reported 1991(1) GLH 342 as well as decision in the the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 as well as decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntla v. Rattan Lal reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 1420 as well as in the decision of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2462 of 2010, in support of his prayer to quash and set aside impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court and to restore the order passed by the learned trial Court awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.23,000/ per month to the wife and three minor children.
5.0 Present application is opposed by Shri Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent husband by submitting that the net salary of the respondent husband is Rs. 36428/ after deduction towards GPF, Professional Tax, Group Insurance, Income Tax etc. and therefore, learned Appellate Court has not committed any error and / or illegality in awarding Rs.4000/ per month to the applicant wife and three minor children i.e. Rs.16000/ per month. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present application.
6.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent husband is a Class I Officer serving as Deputy Collector in the Revenue Department in the State of Gujarat and his gross salary of July 2012 is of Rs.57028/. However the respondent husband is getting amount of Rs.19000/ deducted towards GPF Contribution and deducting Rs.400/ towards Group Insurance, Rs. 200/ towards Professional Tax and Rs.1000/ towards Income Tax and his net salary is Rs.36,426/. It is the case of the applicant wife that GPF contribution of Rs.19000/ is as such required to be considered as savings and is required to be included in the income of the husband while considering the amount of maintenance. On the other hand it is the case of the respondenthusband that as he is getting net salary of Rs.36428/ the same is required to be considered while awarding maintenance to the wife and the minor children. As such identical question came to be considered by this Court while considering the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is held that only those deductions which are compulsory i.e. Professional Tax, Income Tax, Group Insurance etc. are to be excluded for the purpose of considering the salary while awarding maintenance and any deduction towards GPF etc. and / or even the loan taken by the husband it is to be included and considered as income for the purpose of awarding maintenance. Otherwise, the husband if he has to pay maintenance to the wife and the children will always see to it that maximum amount is deducted towards GPF and / or he will take the loan for himself and see to it that the said amount is deducted and he will get minimum net salary. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in considering income of the respondent at Rs.48,860/ and thereby has materially erred in reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.23000/ per month to Rs.16,000/ per month to the applicant wife and minor children.
6.1. 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.
6.2. 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.
6.3. 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).
6.4. 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.
6.5. 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.
6.6. 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.”
6.7. It also cannot be disputed that wife and the children are entitled to live as per the status of the husband/ father and entitled to live in the same / same position as they were living at the place of husband/ fahter and as per the status of the family. As stated above, the respondent husband is serving as Class I Officer in the State of Gujarat as Deputy Collector and at the relevant time when they were staying with the respondent no.1 they were studying in reputed school DPS School and even at present also out of three children two are studying in DPS School. Therefore, considering the expenditure to be incurred by the applicant towards education of the children as well as for her maintenance as well for maintenance of three minor children, they are entitled to at least Rs.23000/ per month towards their maintenance and therefore, the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in interfering with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court reducing the amount from Rs.23000/ to Rs.16000/. As stated above, the income of the respondent husband can safely be considered as 55000/ per month and considering 5 units i.e. husband, wife and three children and some expenses to be incurred by the husband towards maintenance of his mother, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error in awarding Rs.23000/ per month towards maintenance to the wife and three minor children, which was warrant interference by the learned Appellate Court.
7.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present application is succeeds and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 7.10.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 10.8.2011 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1538 of 2010 is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with cost which is quantified at Rs.7500/ which the respondent no.2 shall deposit with the trial Court within four weeks from today, which on deposit shall be permitted to be withdrawn by petitioner.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )