1 2025:CGHC:16608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 596 of 2024 Parvinder Singh Khalsa S/o Sardar Ajit Singh Khalsa Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Behind Calltax Petrol Pump, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Hanit Kaur Khalsa W/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ravlin Khalsa D/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 20 Years R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Bhavnit Khalsa D/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 17 Years Non-Applicant No. 3 Is Minor Impleaded Through Mother Hanit Kaur Khalsa, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.16 17:53:43 +0530 2 08/04/2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 10.04.2024, passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh, in MJC No. F-122 of 2019, whereby the total amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been granted as monthly maintenance to the present respondents payable from the date of application i.e. 21.08.2019. It is also ordered that the maintenance should be paid to the present respondents No. 2 & 3 till their majority or till their disability due to their physical or mental incapability. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is solemnized on 23.11.2002 as per their rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, the respondents No. 2 & 3 are born. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 have been dissolved by decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari on 15.05.2019. 3. The brief facts of the case are that after sometime of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 was being harassing by the petitioner and his family members, which became aggravated by the lapse of time and culminated into marpeet. They demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from her parents and her parents have also satisfied their demand by giving them Rs. 1 Lakh twice, but they did not convinced and continued harassing the respondent No.1. By their harassment and cruelty the respondent No.1 resided at her parents’ house since 2006 to 2010. In the year 2010, after giving assurance that they will not repeat their act of 3 harassment, the petitioner taken back the respondent No.1 to her matrimonial house, but after having some good day, the petitioner and his family members again started harassing her and she was again thrown out from her matrimonial house along with her children on 07.08.2013. Despite various efforts made by the respondent No.1 and her family members, calling of the community meetings, the petitioner is not convinced and since then the respondent No.1 along with her children is residing with her parents. Both the children are school going and the elder daughter of the respondent No.1 is suffering from Celiac Disease, and her treatment is continued at Nagpur, where a huge amount is spent in her treatment, which is borne by her parents. The petitioner has not taken any care of them and has not provided any amount for their nurture, education or medicines. The petitioner is engaged in transporting business having number of trucks in his ownership and is earning more than Rs. 2 Lakhs per month. The respondent No.1 is not having any source of her income and unable to maintain herself and her two daughters, therefore, they claimed the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as monthly maintenance from the petitioner. 4. In the reply, the petitioner denied the averment made in the application and has submitted that the marriage between him and respondent No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 15.05.2019 and now they are not husband and wife. It is also submitted that after few days of marriage, the respondent No.1 started quarreling with him and his family members and used to go to her parents’ house without informing to anyone of his family, even 4 she was not given any respect to his parents. He tried to keep her with him and convinced her, but she continued in her behaviour not to give any respect to his family members. Looking to her adamant altitude, he made an application before the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra for counseling, but the respondent No.1 was remain absent despite notice served upon her. Thereafter, he moved an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari and in that proceeding also, she was not participated. The petitioner and his family members have not treated her with cruelty and have not given any harassment to her. Since the respondent No.1 herself was not willing to reside with the petitioner and did not obey they matrimonial relations, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari. In the proceeding before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, despite notice served upon her through publication of summons in the daily newspaper, she had not appeared before the learned Family Court and not participated in the proceeding, therefore, an ex-parte decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that whenever he made a telephonic call to her, she disconnected the call and has not permitted him to talk to his daughters. She on her own will and without any sufficient cause residing at her parents’ house. The respondent No.1 is running a petrol pump at Tamnar, District Raigarh and earning sufficient amount for her and her daughter’s livelihood. She also owned an electrical shop at Raigarh and she is well earning lady. The petitioner is having an old truck, which he has purchased after taking loan from Equitas Small Finance Company and having 5 limited source of his income. He is having liability of his old aged parents and differently abled brother. The respondent No.1 could not adjust herself in such a limited income and therefore, she is residing at her parents’ house. Since the respondent No.1 is able and capable to earn for her livelihood and earning more than the petitioner, they are not entitled for any maintenance amount. 5. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, passed the order on 10.04.2024 and awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 5000/- each per month to the respondents No. 2 & 3. The amount of maintenance payable from the date of application i.e. 21.08.2019 and it should be paid to the respondents No. 2 & 3 till their majority or till their disability due to their physical or mental incapability. The said order of maintenance is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the learned Family Court has erred in considering the evidence available on record. They should have considered that the respondent No.1 is residing separately from the petitioner without any sufficient cause. The decree of restitution of conjugal rights has not been obeyed by the respondent No.1, which itself proves that the respondent No.1 on her own will is not residing with her husband. A decree of divorce has also been passed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Family Court vide judgement dated 15.05.2019. The said decrees are still in force and operative and after the decree of divorce, in the month of March, 2021 the petitioner has performed second marriage. The 6 learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the requirements of Section 125 of CRPC. The petitioner is having limited source of income and an exorbitant amount has been awarded against him towards maintenance to the respondents, which is beyond his capacity. He would also submit that the unmarried daughters are entitled for maintenance only up to their majority , but the learned Family Court has not considered Section 125(1)(c) of the CRPC. He would further submit that in the present criminal revision, the petitioner has filed an application on 04.10.2024 for taking documents on record, which are the income tax return of the petitioner, which shows his financial capacity and total yearly income as Rs. 4,37,020/- for the assessment year of 2024-25 and Rs. 4,93,750/- for the assessment year of 2023-24 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs yearly (Rs. 25,000/- per month) as the maintenance, which is beyond the capacity of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order and submitted that though the quantum of the maintenance amount is on lower side, but the liability has rightly been held by the learned Family Court. She would also submit that the petitioner is not paying the maintenance amount to the respondents and therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and documents annexed with the petition. 7 9. In the present criminal revision vide order dated 19.09.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, if possible and to resolve their dispute amicably, but vide mediation report dated 27.09.2024, it has been informed that the mediation between the parties failed. 10. The respondent No.1 has stated in her evidence that after sometime of her marriage, the petitioner and his family members started harassing her for demand of dowry and they demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from her. Her father had given Rs. 1 Lakh twice to them and despite that their demand was not stopped and continued. Since 2006 to 2010, she was resided at her parents’ house due to the harassment given to her by the petitioner and his family members. In the year 2010, when they confessed their guilt and assured that they will not repeat their act of cruelty, she went back to her matrimonial house. After sometime, again they started harassing her and on 07.08.2013, they threw her out from her matrimonial house along with her daughters and then her father took them with him. Despite various efforts made by her father and called the meeting, the petitioner was not convinced and was not ready to keep her with him and neglected them completely. Her daughters are school going children. Her elder daughter is suffering from Celiac disease, whose treatment is going on at Nagpur. The expenses of her treatment is bearing by her father. She proved her complaint dated 08.08.2013 made to City Kotwali Police, Dhamtari (exhibit A-1), their Community Head at Dhamtari (exhibit A-2), the birth record of the respondents No. 2 and 3 (exhibit 8 A-3, A-4 and A-5), the treatment papers of the respondent No.2 (exhibit A-6) and their school records (exhibit A-7 to A-19). In cross-examination, she admitted that she is residing at her parents’ house since 08.08.2013 and she filed the application for maintenance in the year 2019. She stated that she did not know as to whether her husband had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2018 or not. She voluntarily stated that she has not received any notice. She admitted that she received a copy of the ex-parte order by post. She further stated that she made various efforts for restitution of their conjugal rights and she filed the documents of community head. She further admitted that against the ex-parte decree of divorce, she made an application before the learned Family Court and when her application was dismissed, she filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and her case was again sent to the Family Court, Dhamtari. She admitted that her husband is the elderly son of his family and taking care of all the family members. She further stated that she has filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, in-laws, brother-in-law and elder father-in-law. She also lodged a report under Section 498-A of IPC against her husband, in-laws, brother-in-law and elder father-in-law and also against the second wife of her husband Seema Babbar. She further admitted in her evidence, which is recorded on 07.10.2023 that her elder daughter Ravleen is attains her age of majority and presently aged about 20 years and her younger daughter is aged about 17 years. She denied the allegation leveled against her that 9 her behaviour was not good, when she was residing at her matrimonial house. 11. The respondent No.1 has also examined her father Mahendrapal as AW-2. He also supported the evidence of the respondent No.1 and stated that he gave Rs. 1 Lakh twice to the petitioner. His daughter is residing with him for the reason that the petitioner and his family members are harassing his daughter and treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry. He tried his level best to get the dispute resolved, but he could not succeed. 12. The petitioner has examined himself as NAW-1 and stated as per his written statement filed in the case. He made allegation against the respondent No.1 that her behaviour was not good and she herself does not want to live with him and left his company without any sufficient cause and started residing separately. He made various efforts to bring her back, but she does not come back to his house. He also moved his application for restitution for conjugal rights, in which ex-parte decree was passed in his favour. He also moved an application for divorce before the learned Family Court, which was also allowed ex-parte. He did not know about any challenge of that decree before the Hon’ble High Court or not. He too has denied the allegation made against him by the respondent No.1. he admitted in Para 20 of his cross-examination that he has not made any arrangement of their maintenance while they are residing separately from him. 10 13. Be that as it may, there is allegation and counter allegation against each other regarding their behaviour, but the fact remains that the respondent No.1 is his wife and respondents No. 2 & 3 are his daughters. It is the petitioner’s moral and legal duty to maintain his wife and children. 14. 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 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 11 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.” 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 12 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 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 13 position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(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 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 14 within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.” 15. From perusal of the materials and evidence produced by the parties, it reflects that both the parties have made allegation and counter allegation against each other, but their relationship have not been denied. The learned Family Court after considering the entire documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties, comes into conclusion that there is a sufficient cause for the respondent/wife to live separately from her husband/petitioner, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no infirmity or perversity, which dragged this Court to interfere with the same. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Sunita Kachhawaha and Others v. Anil Kachhawaha’ AIR 2015 SC 554, has observed in Para 8 of its order that:- “8. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court. ” 15 17. While deciding the case, the learned Family Court after considering the status of the parties and earning capacity of the petitioner/husband as well as the respondent No.1/wife and also the evidence produced by the parties with respect to their financial position, granted Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 5000/- each per month to the respondents No.2 and 3/daughters till their majority or till their disability due to their physical or mental incapability. 18. Considering the present cost of living, the amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. It is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudge, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. In the matter of ‘Rajnesh v. Neha’ 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 78 to 84 that: “78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing 16 the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain 34 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. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. 17 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. 82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. 83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 18 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : “1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.” 19 19. So far as the income tax return filed by the petitioner and his yearly income shown in the copy of said income tax return filed in the present criminal revision is concerned, the income tax return is not the conclusive proof of yearly income of the petitioner for grant of maintenance amount and it is not an accurate guide of real income. In the matter of “Kiran Tomar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another” 2022 SCC Online SC 1539, in Para 10 of its judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “10 On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together. The two children are aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, and their needs have to be duly met.” 20. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, further in view of the judgment of Kiran Tomar (supra), the income tax return cannot be taken as an accurate guide to determine the maintenance amount and the said document does not help the petitioner in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly considered the application of the respondents and granted monthly maintenance 20 of Rs. 25,000/- to them, which is payable from the date of application and the maintenance amount towards the respondents No. 2 and 3/daughters is payable till their majority or till their disability due to their physical or mental incapability. 21. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved