1 2025:CGHC:18706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 140 of 2025 1 - Ajeet Kurre S/o Sukhu Kurre, Aged About 37 Years, R/,o Village Murlidih, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant/Petitioner versus 1 - Ku. Aradhya Kurre D/o Ajeet Kurre, Aged About 2 Years, R/o Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Nagar, Near Kali Temple, Risda Road, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) Through Mother, Smt. Laxmani Kurre W/o Ajeet Kurre, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Nagar, Near Kali Temple, Risda Road, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.), Being Her Natural Guardian ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 24-04-2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband against he impugned order dated 04-12-2024 passed by the learned Family Court Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Mics. Criminal Case No.159/2023 whereby an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month has been granted as maintenance to the respondent who is minor daughter of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner has got married with mother of the present respondent who was applicant No.1 in the proceeding before the learned Family Court. Their marriage was solemnized on 28-11-2021 as per their rites and rituals and out of their wedlock the present respondent is borne on 26-11-2022. In the passage of time the relation between the husband and wife started deteriorating and ultimately they started residing Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 separately. The present respondent is presently living with her mother at her parents house. On 21-06-2023 present respondent and her mother filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/-. In the said application they averted that the wife was being harassed by her husband for changing of her religion and the behaviour of her in-laws was not good with her. After delivery of the present respondent she was sent to her parents house and thereafter, has not taking her care even she along with the daughter has been completely neglected by him and he has not provided any maintenance to them. It is also averted that the present petitioner is software engineer and employed in a software company and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month, whereas, applicant No.1/wife is not having any source of income and dependent upon her parents. Therefore, they claimed Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance amount. 3. The petitioner replied the application filed by the present respondent and her mother and submitted that his wife herself does not want to live with the petitioner and she wanted to keep him as Ghar Jamai and for that reason there was regular quarrel took place between them and ultimately, she left her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. Despite his efforts and community meeting the wife was not ready to reside with him. Presently the petitioner has lost his job and is not having any source of his income, whereas, the wife is working as Pharmacist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month which is sufficient for her and her daughter, therefore, they are not entitled for any maintenance. 4. The learned trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties and after analysing evidence of the parties passed the order on 04-12-2024 and refused to grant maintenance to applicant No.1/wife, but has granted Rs.12,000/- per moth as maintenance to the present respondent from the date of the application till her majority, which is 3 under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not denying to grant maintenance to his daughter, but considering the day to day requirement of expenses Rs.12,000/- per month to a 2 year’s old daughter is excessive. The petitioner has lost his job and having no source of income at present and Rs.12,000/- is excessive for him to pay as maintenance per month to the present respondent. Therefore, he prays for indulgence of this Court in the order of maintenance granted to the respondent by the learned trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that looking to the present cost of living and the income of the petitioner, the learned trial Court has granted appropriate amount to the respondent for her maintenance in which no perversity or illegality and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. 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 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. 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 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 5 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.” 9. Admittedly, the respondent is daughter of the petitioner and he is having legal and moral duty to maintain his daughter who is presently residing with her mother. Though she is presently aged about 2 years, but looking to the present cost of living, medicines, clothes and social status of the petitioner, granting maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. From the perusal of para 33 of the impugned order it reveals that in the assessment year of 2022-23 the total income of the petitioner was Rs.43,89,140/- and therefore, the learned Family Court after adverting the entire facts and circumstances as well as the evidence produced by the parties granted monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to 7 months old daughter of the petitioner (as her age was at the time of filing of the application) in which I do not find any perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this court. 10. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil