1 2025:CGHC:21355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 583 of 2025 1 - Mohan Singh Rajput S/o Late Sunder Singh Rajput, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Maya Sadan Ward No. 2, At Present R/o Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Champa, Police Station and Tehsil - Champa District- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner/Applicant versus 1 - Smt Reeta Singh Rajput W/o Mohan Singh Rajput, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, House of Jageshwar Soni, Rajapara, Champa, Police Station and Tahsil Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent/Non-applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08-05-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 06-02- 2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 135/2023, whereby the learned family court has granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the present respondent/wife. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Marriage between them has been solemnized for a long time, and out of wedlock, one son and one daughter have been born. After the marriage, they resided together for about 8-10 years, and thereafter, the petitioner left the respondent in her parents’ house and has not taken her Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 back. When her father took her to her matrimonial house, they came to know that the petitioner had already kept a lady with him as his wife, namely Mem Bai and thereafter he started abusing and beating her. The petitioner threatened the respondent and her children, for which a report has also been lodged, in which the petitioner faced trial of a criminal trial. The present respondent/wife has been residing separately from her husband for more than 13 years. On 21-01-2020, the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance amount before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. In the application, she pleaded that the petitioner has completely neglected the respondent/wife. The petitioner is employed at Municipal Council, Champa as Revenue Inspector and earns Rs. 40,000/- per month as his salary. The respondent is a deserted lady and has no source of income. Therefore, she claimed Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance amount. 3. The petitioner, while replying to the application, pleaded that at the time of the death of the father of the respondent, he himself had taken her to her parents’ house. She intentionally lodged a false report against the petitioner to cover up her own fault. Since the petitioner was facing criminal trial, he started residing separately in a rented house. He is a retired person and getting pension of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Both children are earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month, and the respondent is not required for any amount towards maintenance. 4. The learned family court has framed issues and, after recording evidence of the parties, partly allowed the application of the respondent and granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as monthly maintenance, which is payable from the date of the order. The order dated 06-02-2025 is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is erroneous and without considering the evidence on record properly, the order 3 of maintenance has been passed. The respondent is residing separately without any sufficient cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. After such a long time, she has filed her application. The respondent is capable of earning her livelihood, and her children are also earning sufficient amount for their livelihood, whereas the petitioner is a retired person having income through his pension only, which is very meagre. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance amount. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. 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) 4 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 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. 5 8. In the matter of “Rajnesh v. Neha”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. In para 77 to 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment held that:- “77. The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant 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 the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]. 79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain [(2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] 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 dependant 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.[Reema Salkan v 6 Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] 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.36 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. 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde [2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8) “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. 7 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17.” 85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable.” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the respondent/wife alleged that the petitioner had treated her with cruelty, and he kept a mistress and is residing with her. She is residing separately from her husband due to the ill treatment given by him to her, and he has completely neglected his wife/respondent for her maintenance. The respondent/wife has also deposed the same version in her evidence. The petitioner/husband has given evidence that the respondent/wife used to go to her parents’ house, and he has not outraged the modesty of his daughter. Due to the allegation made by the respondent/wife against him, he is residing separately. From the evidence of the parties available on record, the learned family court concludes that the petitioner/husband has neglected his wife and failed to maintain her, and she is entitled to maintenance amount from her husband/petitioner. Considering the income of the parties, their living status, liabilities and present cost of living, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the claim of the respondent/wife and granted Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance, which is payable from the date of the order in which this court does not find any infirmity or illegality, which warrants interference in the impugned order. 10. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed at the motion hearing itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil