1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1186 of 2023 1 - Prakash Gendle S/o Shri Nandram Gendle Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill Kuwagaon, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tah. And Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Neetu Gendle W/o Shri Prakash Gendle Aged About 20 Years R/o Vill. Debo, P.S. Fastarpur, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) R/o Vill Kuwagaon, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tah. And Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Divesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.04. 202 5 1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by Family Court, Mungeli in MJC No.235/2023 whereby an amount of Rs.3000/- per month has been granted as maintenance amount to the present respondent wife. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.06.2020 as per their rites and rituals. After marriage, while residing at her matrimonial house the respondent wife was allegedly being harassed by the applicant and his family members for demand of dowry and for other reasons. When she could not fulfill their demand, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house and started Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.04.16 18:48:24 +0530 2 residing with her parents. On 27.06.2023 she filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of monthly maintenance amount with an averment that the her husband i.e. applicant is a Truck Driver and earning Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month, he is having agricultural land in his village and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per year from there also and claimed Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance amount. 3. Replying the said application, the applicant herein submitted before the court below that wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause and despite his efforts to bring her back she could not return back. Divorce between the parties have also been taken place vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2023 passed by the District Judge, Mungeli in Civil Suit No.41-A/2022 on their mutual consent. Therefore, the respondent wife is not entitled for any maintenance. 4. The Family Court framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, decided the application of the wife on 30.10.2023 and passed an order of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in her favour which was payable from the date of application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent wife is residing separately from him without any sufficient cause. From the very beginning she does not want to reside with him. The applicant had gone to earn his livelihood at Delhi after six months of marriage and when he shown his will to keep his wife with him, her parents did not send her with him and they called her back. Despite his efforts to bring his wife back, she could not join his company and obliged the marital relationship. He would also submit that divorce was also taken place between the parties by mutual consent and therefore the respondent wife is not entitled for any maintenance. 3 6. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the Family Court has passed the impugned order after considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as evidence available on record which needs no interference. Even if divorce have been taken place between the parties on mutual consent then also the respondent wife is entitled for maintenance amount. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 8. It is not in dispute that respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant who is residing separately from him. There are allegation and counter allegations from both the sides that they have committed cruelty with each other and their dispute could not be resolved despite various efforts made by them. 9. Be that as it may, it is the legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife. Although divorce have been taken place between the parties at present by the decree of divorce dated 20.02.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.41-A/2022, yet the applicant husband cannot escape from his liability to pay maintenance to his wife until the circumstances would change or she remarried. The contention of the applicant husband that his wife presently got remarried has to be proved in an appropriate proceeding by leading cogent evidence and Panchnama receipt filed by the applicant along with covering memo dated 26.03.2025 cannot be considered at this stage in the present criminal revision and the said Panchnama receipt is required to be proved in appropriate proceeding. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, has considered the scope of granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to wife, 4 children and parents. Paragraph 9&10 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court reads as under: “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 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 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 5 maintain themselves. The aforesaid 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 Bai, 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.” 11. The coordinate Bench of this court in Rishikseh Singh alias T.R. Singh Vs. Kiran Gautam, CRR No.399 of 2008, decided on 05.09.2014, has held in paragraph 14 & 15 held as under: “14. In case of Vanamala (Smt.) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, the provision contained in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. came to be considered and their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that the divorced wife by mutual consent who has not remarried is entitled for maintenance and cannot be debarred by invoking Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C. and observed as under:- 3. ..On a plain reading of this Section it seems fairly clear that the expression 'wife' in the said sub-section does not have the extended meaning of including a woman who has been divorced. This is for the obvious reason that unless there is relationship of husband and wife there can be no question of a divorcee woman living in adultery or without sufficient reason refusing to live with her husband. After divorce where is the occasion for the woman to live with her husband? Similarly there would be no question of the husband and wife living separately by mutual consent because after divorce there is no need for consent to live separately. In the context, therefore, sub-section (4) of Section 125 does not apply to the case of a woman who has been divorced or who has obtained a decree for divorce. In our view, therefore, this contention is not well founded." 15. Likewise, in case of Gurmit Kaur v. Surjit Singh alias Jeet Singh, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the expression 'they are living separately by mutual consent' used in Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. 6 would be attracted during the subsistence of marriage by observing as under:- "6. The concept of living separately by mutual consent arises so long as the marriage subsists and the parties agree to live separately by consent. In other words, during the subsistence of the marriage, if the parties agree to live separately by mutual consent, no party is entitled to lay and claim for maintenance from the other party. 7. In view of the divorce agreement referred hereinabove, the marital relations have to a terminus. By virtue thereof, the respondent had already contracted the second marriage. In other words, the first marriage has been put to an end. The appellant thereby became entitled to claim maintenance and will continue to do so, so long as she remains unmarried and she is unable to maintain herself." 12. Considering the entire evidence available on record and also the status of the parties, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order granting maintenance to the respondent wife by the Family Court Mungeli. The amount of maintenance appears to be reasonable and not exorbitant. Although the applicant husband has claimed that wife got remarried and now the circumstances have been changed, but at this stage this court would not consider the same as it requires to be proved in appropriate proceeding. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the applicant husband is at liberty to approach in appropriate proceeding for redressal of his grievance if there is any change of circumstances. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder