1 2025:CGHC:15540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 420 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Rajput S/o Shri Udaypal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Kamata, Police Station - Nawagarh, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rina Rajput W/o Shri Mahendra Rajput Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Kalarjewara, Police Station - Sakari, Police Station And Tahsil - Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Deepak @ Devraj S/o Shri Mahendra Rajput Aged About 13 Years Minor Through His Mother - Smt. Rina Rajput W/o Shri Mahendra Rajput, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village - Kalarjewara, Police Station - Sakari, Police Station And Tahsil - Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 02/04/2025 1. The matter has been listed on default, the default pointed by the Registry is waived. 2. This is the criminal revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli in MJC 2 No. 87/2023, whereby an amount of Rs. 2500/- has been granted to the respondent No.2 who is the son of the applicant. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was married with the applicant in the year 2008 as per their rites and rituals out of their wedlock respondent No.2 is born. After sometime of marriage dispute arose between the parties and the respondent No.1 along with the respondent No. 2 started residing separately from the applicant and ultimately she filed an application for grant of maintenance amount from her husband i.e. the petitioner. In the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. the respondent No.1 has pleaded that after sometime of marriage the applicant has harassed for demand of dowry and as also for other reasons and thrown out her from his house by which she is residing in her parent's house. She is having no source of her income and depended upon her parents, therefore, the maintenance amount may be granted to them. 4. In the reply filed by the applicant he denied the application made by the respondent No.1 and submitted that he never harassed the respondent No.1 and she is on her will without any sufficient reason residing with her parents and despite her efforts she could not return back to his company, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance, however, he does not dispute that the respondent No.2 is his son. 5. The parties have led their evidence before the learned Family Court and after hearing the parties the learned Family Court have decided the application vide order dated 25.11.2024 and denied by granting maintenance to the respondent No.1/wife. However, Rs. 2500/- has been grated in favour of the respondent No.2 as monthly maintenance payable to him from the date of filing of the application. 3 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is the father of the respondent No.2 and he is ready to keep him with him but it is the wife who does not want to live with him. Since there is no reason for residing separately from him, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to them. She further submits the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the claim of the wife, however, he is not ready to keep his son with him. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant on admission. 8. 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 adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that: (SCC p. 489, para 15) 4 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 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.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 5 of Anju Garg (supra) and further considering the respondent No.2 is the minor son of the applicant and an amount of Rs. 2500/- has been granted in his favour, I do not find any perversity and illegality in the order passed by learned Family Court granting maintenance to the respondent No.2. 10. Consequently, the present petition does not have any merits and liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.03 19:35:34 +0530