1 2025:CGHC:18192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 510 of 2025 1 - Gajendra Khunte S/o Shri Bhoj Ram Khunte Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Katari, Police Station And Tehsil - Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), At Present R/o Village - Jata, Police Station And Tehsil - Saragaon, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Punita Khunte W/o Gajendra Khunte Aged About 33 Years R/o Khamhariya, Police Station - Baradwar, Tahsil - Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Liya Khunte D/o Shri Gajendra Khunte Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Punita Khunte, R/o Khamhariya, Police Station - Bardwar, Tahil - Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For petitioner : Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 22.04.2025. 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Principal 2 Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir-Champa in MCRC No. 90/2023 whereby an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month has been granted as maintenance to the Respondent No. 2 who is the minor daughter of the petitioner which is payable from the date of application i.e. 21.02.2023. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 04.05.2015 and out of their wedlock, the respondent No. 2 is born. After some time of marriage, the dispute arose between the parties and ultimately the respondents residing separately from the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1/ wife was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner for demand of dowry and for other reasons also and subsequently thrown her out from his house, despite making various efforts, she could not succeeded to reside with the petitioner/ husband. Even on 05/07/2022 when she had gone to the house of the petitioner along with her brother, she refused to keep her with him since then the petitioner and her daughter residing separately in a rented house. The petitioner is a tractor driver and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and having residential houses from which he is earing Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent. He is also having an agricultural land in his village and having sufficient source to his income but he fail to maintain his wife and child and completely neglected them. 4. On 21.02.2023, the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the petitioner. 5. The petitioner/ husband filed his reply and has submitted that the respondent No. 1 herself does not want to live with the petitioner. He constructed a house at village – Khamariya, where she is residing and she through out from his house by the respondent No. 1. He moved an 3 application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and tried to settle the dispute but the respondent No.1 refused to come with him. He is having no source of his income and she is dependent on his parents. The respondent No. 1 is an Anganbadi worker and sufficient earned for her and her daughter, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. 6. The learned Family Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties decided the application and granted Rs. 5000/- per month as monthly maintenance to the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the daughter of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1, however, the maintenance to the wife/ respondent No. 1 has been denied. The said order dated 21.03.2025 is under challenge in the present petition. 7. 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. 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. 4 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) 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 5 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. 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.” 8. it is the legal and moral duty of the petitioner/ husband to maintain his wife and child who is residing in starvation and completely destitution. Looking to the present cost of living and the requirement of expenses in day to day life, Rs. 5000/- granted to the respondent No. 2 who is 04 years old daughter of the petitioner, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 9. From perusal of the order impugned, it would reveal that the learned family Court after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the 6 case as well as evidence produced by the parties, came into conclusion and granted monthly maintenance to the respondent No. 2, in which, I do not found any perversity or illegality which warrants interference in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.24 11:09:13 +0530