Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1459 of 2021 Revisionist :- Yogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Yadav,Mahendra Pratap 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 06.03.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat in Case No. 180 of 2016 (Smt. Babita Vs. Yogendra Singh), P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat, by which application under Section 125 CrPC, filed by opposite party no.2, has been allowed and the revisionist-applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party no.2 as maintenance.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband (revisionist-applicant) without any reasonable cause.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has next submitted that the revisionist-applicant is working as an agricultural 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 eyes of law being too excessive.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the opposite party no.2 has instituted a criminal case against her husband under Section 498-A IPC and other allied sections, stating therein that she has been tortured, maltreated and subjected to cruelty by her husband, which is quite a reasonable cause for her separate living.
It is further evident that revisionist-applicant 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 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021/Nadim