1 2025:CGHC:19312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1195 of 2024 1 - Smt. Pratima Rajput W/o Shri Kamta Rajput Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Kormi Road, Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kamta Rajput S/o Shri Pratap Singh Rajput Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Fafamar, Gaindatola, P.S. Gaidatola, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, along with Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in MCRC No.887/2022, whereby the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 02.06.2021 as per their rites and 2 rituals. After the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial house. While residing at her matrimonial house, the respondent husband and his family members started harassing her for the demand of dowry. On 14.08.2021, at the time of Raksha-Bandhan and Teeja festival, the father of the applicant took her to his house, but the respondent husband has not taken her back. When the father of the applicant left her back to her matrimonial house, they faced misbehave by the respondent husband and his family members. In the month of October 2021, they started residing in a rented house at Rajnandgaon. The applicant appeared in the B.A. second- year examination as a private student. The respondent/husband suspected her fidelity and demanded dowry from her. He beat her regularly, and when she received injuries on her hand and head, she informed her parents and then her parents took her back to their house. Since then, she is residing with her parents. 3. On 18.08.2022, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- and pleaded in her application that the respondent husband is working at ABIS Company at Rajnandgaon and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He has agricultural land in the name of his father and earns Rs. 4 lakh per year. The applicant is fully dependent upon her parents, and she is being completely neglected by her husband and is not being maintained. She is facing difficulty in day-to-day life and therefore claimed the maintenance amount. 4. While replying to the application for maintenance, the respondent/husband has pleaded that he or his family members have never demanded any dowry from her nor harassed her for any reason. In view of her better future, he assisted her in her education and got her admitted to the B.A. second year, but instead of studying, she remained talking on her mobile phone with others. He is working as a labourer and earning a very meagre amount in which he maintains as per his capacity. Her parents have kept her without 3 any sufficient cause, and despite her efforts, she has not come to join his company and refused to reside with him. He is ready to keep his wife with him with her dignity, but she herself denied for the same. Since the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 5. The learned family Court framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the application filed by the applicant vide its order dated 28.09.2024 holding that the applicant has failed to prove that she is having sufficient cause to reside separately from her husband and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned family Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and it is the legal and moral duty of him to maintain his wife. There is sufficient evidence on record that proves that the applicant suffered harassment for the demand of dowry from her husband and in-laws, and he also suspected her fidelity. No efforts have been made by the respondent husband to take her back, and the efforts made by her have been denied by the respondent. There is sufficient cause for residing separately from her husband and entitled to the maintenance amount from him. She is residing in destitution and is fully dependent upon her father, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside, and the maintenance amount may be granted to her. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the respondent husband was willing and ready to keep her with him, but she herself was not willing to reside with him. Despite his various efforts, the applicant is not ready to come with him. The allegation of harassment and cruelty has not been proved by her. He also submits that a compromise 4 deed, Ex.D/1, was also executed between the parties, in which it has been mentioned that the father of the applicant took her on his own will and would not take any criminal action against them. In the document Ex.D/2, which is an intimation to the police dated 31.05.2022, it is mentioned that the applicant was not ready to go with her husband. Further, the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also decided in favour of the respondent/husband. Despite that, she has not joined the company of her husband, therefore, it is proved in the case that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient cause and is not entitled to maintenance, and the learned trial Court has rightly decided the application of the applicant, which needs no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned family Court. 9. The applicant Pratima Rajput has been examined herself as AW-1 and Shatrughan Singh Rajpur as AW-2. No documents have been filed by the applicant. The non-applicant has examined himself as NAW-1 (Kamta Rajput) and proved the documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4. 10. The applicant AW-1 has stated in her examination in chief, as per her application, and in cross-examination, she admitted that her in-laws had given their consent for her further studies. Her husband took her to Rajnandgaon for her further studies. Her husband is working as a labourer. She made the allegation that her husband and in-laws have harassed her for the demand of dowry. She denied that she regularly talked with other people on her mobile phone. She voluntarily stated that she engaged in her studies through mobile phone because there were online classes in a mobile phone. She further admitted that on the issue of talking on the mobile phone, an altercation took place between them, and they were convinced by their landlady. Thereafter, her father took her to her parents’ house. She admitted that her husband, along with 14 -15 people, came to her house to take her 5 back. She denied that she refused to go with them. She voluntarily stated that they came there to see her well-being. She denied that she on her own will residing at her parents’ house. She voluntarily stated that she is under threat to her life and therefore, she is not willing to go there with her husband. She further stated that after filing her application, she was served with a notice sent by her husband. 11. AW-2, Shatrughan Singh Rajput, who is the father of the applicant, have stated in his evidence that his daughter was engaged in talking on the phone heavily, and to convince her, she was being called. On 30.05.2022, there was a dispute with respect to the mobile phone, and her husband beat his daughter. On 30.05.2022, he took his daughter with him for some days and gave it in writing in an agreement. After 15 days of 30.05.2022, the respondent, along with his family members, came to his house to take his daughter back, but due to the behaviour of the respondent, he has not sent her back. 12. The respondent NAW-1, in his examination in chief have stated as per his reply and in cross-examination, he admitted that in the month of October 2021, they came to Rajnandgaon where the applicant was appearing in the B.A. second year examination. He denied that he or his family members had demanded any dowry from her or harassed her. He also denied beating her. He further stated that the father of the applicant has taken her for 15 days but has not sent her back. He admitted that since May 2022, he has not given any maintenance amount to his wife. He admitted that he was working at ABIS Company while they were residing at Rajnandgaon. He also admitted that he has four acres of land at village Gendatola in the name of his father. He voluntarily stated that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month, but presently he was removed from his work. He admitted that he had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act after receiving notice of the present case. He denied that the agreement Ex.D/1 was executed by 6 creating pressure upon the father of the applicant. He voluntarily stated that the agreement was executed at the instance of the father of the applicant. 13. From the evidence led by the parties, it appears that there are allegations and counter-allegations against each other. But the fact remains that after May 2022. The applicant is residing separately from her husband, and no maintenance has been provided to her by the respondent. 14. The scope and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anju Garg and Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg”, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314. In para 9 and 10 of its judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “9. ............, 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 (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. 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1159/1996: (1996) 4 SCC 479: 1996 SCC 7 (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 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 (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 [(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. 8 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.” 15. In the matter of “Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, 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 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 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 reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain 9 under the law, liabilities if a he required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high com living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of inc ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wile if he n able-bodied and has educational qualifications. 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depend on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living the the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The ma amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the the extremes ie. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should the 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 the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (1) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants d the claimant, (ii) 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 DV 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 accustomed to in her matrimonial home." 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: (SCC OnLite 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 a 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. 10 9. Some guesswork 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 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act." 16. Be that as it may, it is the legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife who is living in destitution and neglected by her husband. In the present case, the applicant was denied for grant of monthly maintenance amount on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown by her for residing separately from her husband. From the evidence, though it appears that the respondent made his effort to take her back but the evidence by the parties would not be sufficient to draw a conclusion that there is no reason for her to reside separately, as there is the allegation of harassment and cruelty alleged by the applicant. Therefore, denying the grant of maintenance to the applicant on this ground could not be proper, which needs to be interfered with in the present criminal revision. 17. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 is erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, and the prayer for the grant of a monthly maintenance amount to the applicant is partly allowed. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), the respondent/husband is a labourer and low earning person, and also in view of the financial conditions of the parties, it is ordered that the applicant is entitled for Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance amount from the respondent which is payable from the date of filing of the present criminal revision i.e. 23.10.2024. The entitlement of the maintenance amount is made from the date of filing of the criminal revision, i.e. 23.10.2024, in view of the financial condition of the parties and to avoid any accumulation of arrears of maintenance and financial burden upon the respondent. 11 18. Accordingly, the criminal revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed, in terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove. 19. The parties are at liberty to avail their remedy for alteration of the maintenance amount if the situation/circumstances so arise. 20. The trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.09 18:20:08 +0530