Court No. - 58
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2011 Revisionist :- Pravesh Alias Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.
List is revised. None appears on behalf of revisionist whereas learned AGA is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
The revisionist Pravesh Alias Kallu has preferred this revision against the order dated 01.12.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 583 of 2008 (Smt. Rajani Versus Praveen alias Kallu), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of application and Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of order was awarded to the opposite party no. 2.
Brief facts which give rise to the revision are that opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with the averment that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist Pravesh Alias Kallu on 06.07.2007 according to Hindu rites and rituals in which sufficient dowry was given but husband and in laws were not satisfied with it and used to torture and harass her by raising demand of Rs. 20,000/- and motorcycle. She was also ousted from the house in the wearing clothes. Although the revisionist is Thekedar and doing business of dairy having sufficient means on the other hand the opposite party no. 2 is unable to maintain herself.
In this revision, the main point of determination is that whether the revisionist despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. More than there is sufficient reasons before the opposite party no. 2 to live separately from her husband.
Before adverting to the claim of the parties, it would be relevant to quote section 125 Cr.P.C.:
Order for maintenance of wives, children and parent:
"125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct."
From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that an order under section 125 Cr.P.C. can be passed, if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business. These are only bald excuses and in fact they have no acceptability in laws. 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.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 has held that the grant of maintenance to wife is a measure of social justice. The Court held as under:
"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. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 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."
A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Durga Singh Lodhi Vs. Prembai and others, 1990 Cr.L.J. 2065 has held that mere absence of visible means or real estate will not entitle such a person to escape the liability to pay maintenance awarded under Section 125(1), as even at the stage of enforcement of the order under Section 125(1), an able bodied healthy person capable of earning, must be subjected to pay maintenance allowance. If, with this visible capacity to earn, he avoids payments, it has to be held that he has so done for no sufficient cause. If such a person avoids to discharge that obligations despite issuance of a distress warrant, he can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term specified in sub- section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 564-565 of 2015, decided on 06.4.2015, which has held as under:
"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 Cr.P.C., 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."
After going through the record, it is clear that opposite party no. 2 has been ousted from the house of her husband on being harassed and tortured on the demand of additional dowry. Almost no wife is supposed to leave the house of the husband without any rhyme or reason. Wife's right to claim maintenance can be denied in the circumstances only provided under section 125(4) Cr.P.C. which runs as follows:
"Section 125(4)- No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance [for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Bai Patel vs. Shyam Kumar Patel, 2002 (44) ACC 1102 SC has held as under:
"To put it differently, does the statements made by the wife that she had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and that she was earning Rs. 50/- per day by agricultural operations, disentitle her to receive maintenance from her husband? It is our considered view that such statements without anything more would not be sufficient to deny maintenance to the wife from her husband. It is to be kept in mind that it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife and wife has the right to claim maintenance so long as she stays away from the matrimonial home under compelling circumstances. The wife's right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be denied only in the circumstances provided under sub-section (4) of the said section."
Principle is that when prima facie marriage is established, maintenance should be awarded because section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to curtail destitution and also to ameliorate orphancy. The object is to achieve social purpose and to prevent vagrancy and destitute.
The opposite party no. 2 Smt. Rajani is trying to get maintenance through this application since 2008. The proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife whereas the revisionist has failed to establish that opposite party no. 2 without any sufficient reason refused to live with him.
In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 583 of 2008 (Smt. Rajani Versus Praveen alias Kallu), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is justified and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
The revision is dismissed. There is no order for cost.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Office is directed to communicate the order to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 28.11.2017 Prakhar