1 2025:CGHC:20028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 321 of 2024 1 - Bhupendra Goutam S/o Radheshyam Vastrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o- Mig- I/135, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Nagar Korba, P.S. Manikpur, Tahsil And District- Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vidya Vastrakar W/o. Bhupendra Goutam, Aged About 32 Years R/o. In Front of F.C.I. Godam, Mungeli, Road Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, appeared though virtual mode along with Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Verma, on behalf of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 984/2022, whereby an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per 2 month has been granted in favour of the respondent/wife which is payable from the date of application. 3. The brief fact of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.12.2020 as per their rites and rituals and thereafter they started residing together. After sometime of marriage it is alleged that the respondent/wife is being harassed by the petitioner/husband and his family members for demand of dowry which ultimately converted into abusing and beating. By the assault made by the petitioner/husband and his family members, she was being treated at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. When the respondent/wife made a complaint against the harassment of the petitioner/husband and his family members, their behaviour were more severe and there was no change in their behaviour with the respondent/wife. When the respondent/wife informed the incident to her parents, she was again beaten by the petitioner/husband and his family members and thrown her out from his house. The brother of the respondent/wife took her to his house. Whenever she tried to go to her matrimonial house her husband and family members refused to take her back and asked her to bring money for car, refrigerator and washing machine and also to construct the house otherwise they will not accept her. She also suspects that her husband is having extra marital affair with another girl. 4. On 08.07.2021, she gave a written intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and went back to her matrimonial house to save her matrimonial tie but she was against harassed by her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, she return back to her parents' house and residing there. On 24.09.2022 she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned family Court, Bilaspur for grant of monthly maintenance amount. In her application, she averred that she is not having any source of income and she is a house maker, she is fully dependent upon her parents whereas the petitioner/husband employed at HDFC bank at Bengaluru and earning Rs. 3 70,000/- per month as his salary. He is having ancestral property at village Pandhi Devri a house at Korba, land at village Pali and also having a house at Mangla, Bilaspur. The petitioner/husband is capable to give him the maintenance amount and she claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month as monthly maintenance. 5. The petitioner/husband replied the application filed by the respondent/wife and averred that the respondent/wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause. From the very beginning she wanted to reside separately from his parents. She was not given any respect to his parents and she pressurized him to reside at Bilaspur in her house as gharjamai and when he refused, the dispute arose between them . The respondent/wife is under influence of her parents and wanted to keep him with her at Bilaspur at any cost. The petitioner/husband though employed at HDFC bank, Bengaluru but his monthly his salary is Rs. 18,000/- in which he could not pay the amount of Rs. 7000/- per month to the respondent/wife. Since she is residing separately without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 6. The learned family Court after framing issue and after recording evidence of the parties, partly allowed the application and granted Rs. 7,000/- per month as the monthly maintenance amount in favour of the respondent/wife which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned family Court has not considered the actual income of the petitioner/husband and also the reason for residing separately. He would further submits that there is no reason for the respondent/wife to reside separately as she herself does not want to reside with him and wanted to keep him with her at her parents' house for which the petitioner husband has refused and thereafter she created a ground of dowry harassment only to obtain maintenance amount from the petitioner/husband. The amount awarded by the learned family Court is excessive and in the total income of the petitioner/husband Rs. 4 7,000/- per month granted in favour of the respondent/wife is too excessive and exorbitant, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes and supported the impugned order and submitted that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1314, has held in Para 9 & 10 of its judgment:- “9. ............, it may be noted that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. MANU/SC/0605/2014: (2015) 6 SCC 353 This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq (1987) 1 SCC 624: 1987 SCC (Cri.) 237] the Court opined that: (SCC p. 631, para 16) 16. ".......Proceedings Under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner." 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) V Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose Under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, para 3) 3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1159/1996: (1996) 4 SCC 479: 1996 SCC (Cri.) 762], while 5 adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that: (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15.... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 356), reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 6) 6.... Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508] 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 [ MANU/SC/0193/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri.) 787). 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 407: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. 10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions Under Section 125 of the Code. Such an Impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical 6 labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.” 11. The respondent/wife have stated in her evidence as per her application of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and stated that she was being harassed by the petitioner/husband for demand of dowry and ultimately she was being thrown out from his house by her husband and in-laws and under the compelling circumstances she is residing with her parents. Her husband is an employee at HDFC bank, Bengaluru and earning Rs. 70,000/- per month. He was having various properties at Pandhi, Devri, Bilaspur, Korba and Pali. 12. In cross-examination nothing substantial has been asked from her to disbelieve her chief examination or any reason which makes her liable that she is residing separately from her husband without any sufficient cause. Although she stated that she has not made any complaint against the conduct of the petitioner/husband but that itself is not sufficient in view of the fact that none of the persons would lodge report on the first instance and every person try to resolve the dispute on their own. With respect to the monthly income of the petitioner/husband it has only been asked that she has not filed any document. 13. The petitioner/husband have stated in his evidence that he or his family members have never treated the respondent/wife with cruelty but she herself wanted to reside with her parents and pressurized him to live with her as her gharjamai and when he refused to go with the respondent/wife she started making allegation against him. He admitted that in his evidence that since the month of 2022, he is posted as Senior Sales Office at HDFC Bengaluru. He was being cross-examined by the respondent/wife on the point that the 7 petitioner/husband is having extra marital affair with another girl. He admitted in his cross-examination that after August, 2021 he has not tried to take her back with him. He also admitted that in the month of August, 2021 when the respondent/wife return back to her parents house he has not made any complaint to anyone. He further admitted that in the month of January, 2022 he filed an application under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act before the family Court, Bilaspur and the same was withdrawn in the month of November, 2022. He also admitted that the respondent/wife has lodged a report with respect to dowry harassment on which an FIR has been registered and a criminal case is pending against him and his family members. 14. Be that as it may be there is an allegation and counter allegation against each other with respect to their behavior with each other but the fact remains that it is the petitioner/husband legal and moral duty to keep his wife with him and to maintain him as per his own status. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of “Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, held in para 79 that:- 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations, the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 16. The quantum of maintenance is always lies with the discretion of the family Court which depends upon the income of the parties, present cost of living, their social and financial condition and other surrounding circumstances and after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence available on record, the status of the parties, the learned family 8 Court has considered Rs. 7,000/- per month as monthly maintenance amount in favour of the respondent/wife which in the opinion of this Court neither excessive nor exorbitant which requires any interference by this Court, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned family Court. 17. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.05.05 20:04:50 +0530