1 2025:CGHC:21720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 423 of 2023 1 - Daniram Sahu S/o Tekram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Dhaurabhatha (Khisora Nawagaon) P.S. Magarload District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ...Petitioner/Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Purnima @ Roma Sahu W/o Daniram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o C/o Deepak Sahu, Village Patewa, P.S. Gobranawapara, Tahsil - Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sahil Sahu S/o Daniram Sahu Aged About 3 Years Through Mother Smt. Purnima @ Roma Sahu W/o Daniram Sahu Aged 24 Years R/o C/o Deepak Sahu, Village Patewa, P.S. Gobranawapara, Tahsil Nawapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. Mob. 9009125128 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09-05-2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned order dated 20-03-2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No.687/2021 whereby an amount of Rs.6000/- per month has been granted to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.4000/- per month has been granted to respondent No.2/son as monthly maintenance Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 amount which is payable from the date of application, i.e., 21-09-2021. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 07-05-2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After their marriage the respondent No.1 residing at her matrimonial house and out of their wedlock respondent No.2 born. Since after some time of marriage the petitioner/husband and his family members started harassing the respondent No.1/wife for demand of dowry and also for other reasons, respondent No.1/wife had made a complaint to Magarlod Police Station on 27-05-2019 as she was being assaulted by her mother-in-law and respondent No.1 received injuries on her body. Then, with the intervention of of police and elderly family members she made compromise on assurance given by her in-laws that they will give her one acre of agricultural field and thereafter she resided separately in separate room. The petitioner used to drink liquor and engaged in gambling. He also neglected her and not provided any food and grocery items. The land which was given by her in- laws has also been taken back by her husband and she was harassed by various modes by the petitioner/husband and he continuously used to demand money from her parents. From the month of February, 2021 she is residing separately in her parents house. Despite efforts the petitioner/husband refused to take her back and then on 31-03-2021 she made a complaint to Mahila Thana Raipur in which counselling was also done. On 21-09-2021 she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur for grant of montly maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. In her application she averred that she is not having any source of income and dependent upon her parents. The petitioner/husband is a driver and having tractor in his house and he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month from his occupation and thus, she claimed Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5000/- per month for her son as monthly maintenance amount. 3 3. The petitioner/husband while replying the application filed by the respondents submitted that after some time of marriage the behaviour of respondent No.1 was changed towards him and his family members. She used to raise quarrel with her family members for one or other reasons and threatened them to rope them in false case of dowry. Since the family of the petitioner/husband is a joint family, respondent No.1 used to say that she is not willing to reside in joint family as she has to work hard and asked him to reside separately from them. Due to the behaviour of respondent No.1 partition took place in the family and the agricultural field which settled in favour of them had gone to the share of his uncle and aunt. Respondent No.1 is residing separately at her parents house without any sufficient cause and despite various efforts made by him she refused to come back with him. The respondent No.1 is earning sufficient amount for her and her child by working as labourer. The petitioner/husband is hardly earning Rs.5000/- from his occupation of driver and since the respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties partly allowed the application of the respondents and granted Rs.10,000/- monthly maintenance amount in favour of respondents payable from the date of application, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is erroneous on the facts as well as law. The respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause and despite various efforts made by the petitioner/husband she has not joined the company of her husband. The allegation leveled by her has not bee proved by leading cogent evidence. The petitioner/husband is a driver and earning very meager amount from his occupation. He has never harassed respondent No.1 and never treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry or for any other reason. It is on her own 4 insistence the partition of the family property took place. The respondent No.1 herself is not willing to reside with the petitioner/husband. She would further submit that the petitioner/husband is victim of behaviour of the respondent No.1 and somehow earning a meager amount for his livelihood. He is not habitual drinker of liquor and not engaged in any gambling activity. Higher amount of Rs.10,000/- per month has been awarded against the petitioner/husband as monthly maintenance amount. Respondent No.1 is also sufficiently earning for herself and her son and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence on the record that the respondent No.1 is residing separately from her husband as she was harassed by her husband and his family members and there are sufficient reason for her residing separately. The respondent No.1 is completely neglected for her maintenance by the petitioner which is his legal and moral duty and she is residing in starvation and compelled to earn for herself and her son, under such circumstances even if she is earning by work of labourer it cannot be said that she is having sufficient income for herself. The petitioner/husband has not taken any care of his wife and son. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence produced by the parties, income of the parties and the liability and also the present cost of living and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 the learned Family Court has rightly awarded the maintenance amount in favor of the respondents which are absolutely justified and needs no interference. The petitioner/husband is an able bodied man having sufficient source of his income and he is able and capable to pay maintenance as ordered by the learned Family Court and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned 5 order and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Family Court. 8. The primary object of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to give social justice to women and children, and infirm parents, to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It provides a speedy remedy to those women, children and parents who are in distress and a helpless condition. In the matter of Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314 has held in para 9 that:- “9. At the outset, 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 [MANU/SC/0420/1987 (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.) [ MANU/SC/0719/1991: (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) 6 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 [ MANU/SC/8286/2007: (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 [MANU/SC/0067/1978: (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 [ MANU/SC/0248/2013: (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. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, from the evidence of respondent No.1/wife Purnima @ Roma Sahu it reveals that she made allegation of harassment and cruelty against her husband as well as her in-laws for demand of dowry and when she protested she was being harassed by them. Her husband used to consume liquor and abuse and beat her regularly. On 26-05-2019 she was subjected to assault by her mother-in-law for which the 7 report has been lodged at Magarlod Police Station on 27-05-2019 and with the intervention of police the matter was compromised between them and she was provided one acre of land as per terms settled between them. After settlement she along with her husband was residing in another room and during this period the petitioner used to consume liquor and has not managed any grocery items and engaged in playing gambling. She used to work as labourer for fulfillment of routine expenses of the family. The petitioner/husband regularly pressurized her to bring Rs.80-90 thousand from her parents and ultimately from the month of February, 2021 she came back to her parents house and is residing there. She again made a complaint to police in which conselling was done on 31-03-2021. The petitioner/husband is working as driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and she is required Rs. 15,000/- for herself and her son as monthly maintenance. In her cross- examination nothing could be abstracted by the petitioner/husband so that her allegation could be disbelieved or it cannot be held that she was residing separately without any sufficient cause. From the evidence produced by respondent No.1 AW-2 Deepak Sahu who is father of respondent No.1 and Chandrakant Sahu who is villager, there are sufficient reason reflected from their evidence which gives cause to reside separately in favour of respondent No.1. 10. From the evidence of the petitioner/husband who has been examined as NAW-1 it is not reflected that he tried to settle the dispute or provided any maintenance to the respondents. From the evidence of NAW-2 Tekram Sahu who is father of the petitioner/husband the allegation made by respondent No.1/wife could not be rebutted. 11. Be that as it may, there are allegations and counter allegations of behaviour of each other in the family, but the fact remains that respondents are residing separately from the petitioner and the petitioner is required to maintain his wife and child and having legal and moral duty to maintain them who has 8 failed to maintain them and to provide maintenance to them. The object of the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to provide a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothings and shelter to deserted wife who are unable to support herself but have a moral claim for support. Considering the evidence available on record as well as income of the parties, present cost of living and the liabilities upon them, further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra) the learned Family Court has granted Rs.6000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent No.2/son which cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant or it cannot be held that the respondents are not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner/husband. After adverting the entire evidence available on record the learned Family Court has passed the order granting maintenance to the respondents, in which I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order granting total maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents which is payable from the date of the application. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil