1 2025:CGHC:18191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 511 of 2025 Suresh Banjare S/o Ramesh Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Lal Bhadur Shastri Ward Patpar Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Town District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt Durga Banjare W/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Lal Bhastri Ward Patpar Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Town District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) Present R/o Village Diggi P.S. Bhatapara Rural District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Minor Kumari Rashmi Banjare D/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 13 Years Since Minor Represented By Natural Gurdian Mother Smt. Durga Banjare W/o Suresh Banjare R/o Ward Patpar Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Town Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Diggi P.S. Bhatapara Rural Distt.- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Minor Kumari Mahi Banjare D/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 11 Years Since Minor Represented By Natural Gurdian Mother Smt. Durga Banjare W/o Suresh Banjare R/o Ward Patpar Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Town Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Diggi P.S. Bhatapara Rural Distt.- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Minor Kumari Kamini Banjare D/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 9 Years Since Minor Represented By Natural Gurdian Mother Smt. Durga Banjare W/o Suresh Banjare R/o Ward Patpar Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Town VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.23 17:40:21 +0530 2 Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Diggi P.S. Bhatapara Rural Distt.- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Minor Divyansh Banjare S/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 6 Years Since Minor Represented By Natural Gurdian Mother Smt. Durga Banjare W/o Suresh Banjare R/o Ward Patpar Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Town Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Diggi P.S. Bhatapara Rural Distt.- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 22/04/2025 Heard on admission. 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 01.04.2025, passed by learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, in MCRC No. 324 of 2024, whereby the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been granted as maintenance amount in favour of the present respondents, who are the wife and children of the petitioner, which is payable from the date of application i.e. 04.11.2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the month of May 2010 as per their rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, the respondents No. 2 to 5 have been born. In the passage of time, it is 3 alleged that the petitioner has developed intimacy with his neighbour and they are having extramarital affair and therefore, the dispute arose between the parties. Despite her request, the petitioner did not convince and continued in his extramarital relation and started residing with his neighbour with whom he is having extramarital affair. He is neglected to maintain the respondents and in the month of July 2024, he has thrown out the respondents from his house. Therefore, she is residing at village Diggi along with her children. 3. Since, the respondents have been neglected by the petitioner, they filed an application on 04.11.2024 before the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner. It is averred in the application that they are having no source of their income, whereas the petitioner is having sufficient income from his occupation of dumper driver. He is also earning an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- from his occupation and therefore, Rs. 25,000/- is required for their monthly maintenance and the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount to them. 4. Replying to the application filed by the respondents, the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 does not want to live with him and she raised quarrel on the petty issue regularly and threatened her that she will send him to jail in a false case. The respondents are residing along with her parents at village Patpar. The petitioner had tried his level best to convince his wife and a community meeting 4 was also convened in presence of the senior members of the family, but the respondent No. 1 refused to come with the petitioner and residing separately without any sufficient cause. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 5. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, granted total Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs. 2,000/- to each of the applicants/present respondents), which is payable from the date of application vide order dated 01.04.2025, which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having very less income and out of which Rs. 10,000/- is impossible for him to pay to the respondents as monthly maintenance. He would further submit that the learned Family Court itself comes into conclusion that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 15,000/- and out of which payment of Rs. 10,000/- would be impossible for him as he is having the other liability also. He is ready to keep the wife and children with him, but they themselves did not want to reside with him. Therefore, an excessive amount has been awarded to the respondents towards monthly maintenance amount, which is liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner that perused the impugned order. 8. The scope and object of Section 125 of CRPC has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Anju Garg and 5 Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg’ 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 9 and 10 of its judgement has held that:- “9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 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 vs. Meena & Ors. 1. 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 Cr.P.C 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 6 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.” 1 (2015) 6 SCC 353 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(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 7 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 CrPC 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 [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .” 8 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 vs, Sita Bai2, 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 Cr.P.C. 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 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5 are the children of the petitioner. As per the evidence of the respondent No. 1, she alleged that the petitioner is having an extramarital affair with his neighbour and he started residing with her and despite her efforts, he could not convince her and ultimately she along with her children were thrown out by the petitioner from his house, for which a report has also been made on 01.09.2024 to the police. Since the respondents have been thrown out from the house of the petitioner, they are compelled to reside separately from him and they were completely neglected by the petitioner from their maintenance. The daughter of the petitioner also made her evidence against the petitioner that the petitioner is residing in the house of her neighbour, which clearly reflects the conduct of the petitioner that he is having an extramarital affair with her neighbour, which is the cause for residing separately from the petitioner. It is the legal and moral duty of the petitioner's husband to maintain his wife and children and do not left them in starvation or in destitute condition. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that the learned Family Court after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence produced by the parties has granted Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs. 2,000/- to each of the applicants) as monthly maintenance, which is payable from the date of application, cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. In the present cost of living, Rs. 10,000/- per month for wife and four children cannot be the 10 excessive, particularly when the children are in between the age group of 6 years to 13 years. 11. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg (supra), I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order which warrants interference in the present petition. 12. Accordingly, the present petition does not have any merits and is thereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved