1.0 Rule. Shri Vasant Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.2 in Criminal Revision Application No. 272 of 2011 and Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2.0 As common question of law and facts arise in both these Criminal Revision Applications and are between the same parties and challenging the very order passed by the learned Family Court and as such they can be said to be cross Criminal Revision Applications, both the revision applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3.0 Criminal Revision Application No.272 of 2011 has been preferred by the original applicantwife to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, No.1, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1376 of 2003 in so far as awarding Rs.1500/ per month to the applicant wife and Rs.750/ per month in each of minor son i.e. Rs.3000/ per month only. Thus, the applicant wife has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.
3.1. Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2012 has been preferred by the applicantoriginal opponenthusband to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, No.1, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1376 of 2003 awarding Rs.1500/ per month to the wife and Rs.750/ per month in each of minor son i.e. Rs.3000/ per month, towards their maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. That the applicant no.1 of Criminal Revision Application No.272 of 2011 and others preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1376 of 2003 before the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad for getting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the original opponent husband. It was the case on behalf of the wife that out of their marriage they have got two sons and one daughter. It was the case on behalf of the wife that she was ill treated and even beaten by the husband and his family members for dowry demand and were pressurizing the applicant wife to get money from her parents and thereafter she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. It was the case on behalf of the applicant wife that in fact the respondent husband has started living with one another lady Harshaben in the Bungalow at Mehsana. It was the case on behalf of the applicant wife that by writing accounts of number of persons the husband is earning Rs.30,000/ to Rs.35,000/ per month. It was also submitted that the husband is having Car, Scooter, Mobile etc. Therefore, it was requested to award in all Rs.15000/ per month towards their maintenance.
4.1. The said application was opposed by the husband denying the allegation of ill treatment and harassment. It was submitted that as such because of the nature of the applicant wife and in fact she was quarreling with the husband and his family members it was decided to get the divorce and the divorce deed was entered into on 28.12.2002 and since then the applicant is not his legally wedded wife. It was submitted that as per the divorce deed the children were to be kept and maintained by the husband who had stayed at flat at Ahmedabad however the applicant wife has taken two children to her parental house. It was also specifically denied that his income is Rs.30,000/ to Rs.35,000/ per month. That the learned Family Court believed the income of the respondent husband at Rs. 10,000/ per month and consequently by impugned order has directed to pay Rs.1500/ per month to the applicant wife and Rs.750/ per month to two minor sons and as the original applicant no.4 daughter become major did not grant any maintenance to her though she was unmarried. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, both the original applicant wife and the minor children and the original opponent have preferred the present Criminal Revision Applications.
5.0. Shri V.M. Pancholi, learned advocate for the original applicant and minor children (who have become major on 2.9.2011) has vehemently submitted that the learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding monthly Rs.1500/ per month to the wife and Rs.750/ to the minor son. It is submitted that the original opponent husband is writing accounts of so many other persons and is having property at Mehsana as well as Ahmedabad and having Car and Scooter, the learned Family Court has materially erred in considering the the income of the respondent at Rs.10,000/ per month. It is further submitted that in fact the respondent husband has not produced any documentary evidence and / or any other evidence to show / prove his income and therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the husband and ought to have considered the income of the husband at least Rs.30,000/ to 35,000/ per month and consequently ought to have awarded maintenance accordingly. It is submitted that now two sons (who are twins) have become major on 2.9.2011 and therefore, considering Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure they will not be getting any maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as both of them are studying and the applicant wife has to incur expenditure towards their education maintenance etc. it is requested to enhance the amount of maintenance to the wife to Rs.5000/ per month from the date on which the minor have become major i.e. 2.9.2011 and Rs.5000/ per month in all to wife and minor sons till 2.9.2011.
5.1. Shri Pancholi, learned advocate for the applicants 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 enhance the amount of maintenance.
6.0 While opposing Criminal Revision Application No.272 of 2011 and in support of Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2012, Shri Vasant Shah, learned advocate for the respondent husband has submitted that as such the wife has left matrimonial house without any reasonable cause. It is submitted that in any case in view of divorce deed produced at Exh.86 under which the wife had forgone her right to maintenance, the learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding maintenance to the original applicant no.1 wife. Shri Shah, learned advocate for the respondenthusband has fairly conceded and admitted that he is not disputing the liability and responsibility of original opponent to maintain the children. It is further submitted that in absence of any other evidence produced by the wife to show the income of the opponent husband learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding Rs.3000/ per month to the wife and the minor children. It is further submitted that as such both the minors have become major on 2.9.2011. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the Criminal Revision Application No. 272 of 2011 and allow Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2012.
7.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original applicant has claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the opponent husband and claimed Rs.15000/ per month towards maintenance. It appears that at the relevant time original applicant no.4 daughter had become major who at the relevant time aged 19 years and at the relevant sons were minor and who have become major on 2.9.2011. It was the specific case on behalf of the original applicant that opponent husband is earning Rs.30,000/ to Rs.35,000/ per month and is writing accounts and having motor car, scooter and mobile and other properties at Ahmedabad and Mehsana. Except denial the opponent husband has not produced any evidence to show his income. It cannot be disputed that the opponent husband is the best person to have the evidence to prove his income. Still the opponent husband has not produced any evidence to show his income. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the status of the husband that he is writing accounts of other persons and having property / flat at Mehsana and Ahmedabad the claim of the original applicant for maintenance is required to be considered.
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.”
8.0 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and the fact that husband is writing accounts of other persons (it is not denied) and is having property at Mehsana as well as Ahmedabad, the learned Family Court has materially erred in considering the income of the husband at Rs.10000/ per month only and consequently has materially erred in awarding Rs.3000/ per month only towards maintenance of wife and the two minor sons. Looking to the price rise, inflation, value of rupee and the expenditure to be incurred by the wife towards her maintenance and towards education and maintenance of sons, it appears to the Court that learned Family Court ought to have awarded at least Rs.2500/ per month to the original applicant no.1 wife and Rs.1250/ to each of minor till 2.9.2011 and Rs.5000/ to the wife towards her maintenance w.e.f. 2.9.2011 ( as after son have become the major though they are unemployed and even studying in the college they are not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
9.0 Now, so far as contention on behalf of the husband that in view of the divorce deed produced at Exh.86 the original applicant wife would not be entitled to maintenance is concerned, it is required to be noted that the wife has denied the execution of such divorce deed and has even denied her signature and it is case on behalf of the applicant wife that same is forged one.
10. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the husband that wife and the minor sons were residing at Mehsana, the Family Court, Ahmedabad would not have any jurisdiction is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such no plea has been raised by the husband before the Family Court and therefore, it is not open for him to make such grievance now. Even otherwise, considering the Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is not required to be quashed and set aside on the aforesaid ground.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Revision Application No. 272 of 2011 is partly allowed and the original opponent husband directed to pay Rs.2500/ per month to the original wife and Rs.1250/ each to the minor son towards their maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of application before the Family Court till 2.9.2011 and to pay Rs.5000/ per month to the original wife towards her maintenance w.e.f. 2.9.2011 and to continue to pay the same and as and when due and payable between 1st and 10th day of even English Calendar Month. Arrears pursuant to the present order shall be paid within the period of 8 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent so far as Criminal Revision Application No.272 of 2011. Consequently Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2012 filed by the respondent husband deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )