1 2025:CGHC:20808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 569 of 2025 1 - Bhupendra Sinha S/o Gaucharan Sinha Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kariha, Post Haradula, Tehsil And Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ved Kumari Sinha W/o Bhupendra Sinha Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Rudri Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Lokita Sinha D/o Bhupendra Sinha Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian, Mother Namely Smt. Ved Kumari Sinha, W/o Bhupendra Sinha, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Rudri Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Satyajeet Sinha S/o Bhupendra Sinha Aged About 9 Years Minors Through Their Natural Guardian, Mother Namely Smt. Ved Kumari Sinha, W/o Bhupendra Sinha, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Rudri Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 2 06/05/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari in Misc. Criminal Case No. 138/2024, whereby the total amount of Rs. 4,000/- has been granted as monthly maintenance amount to the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner, whose marriage have been solemnized with the petitioner on 12.06.2012 as per their rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been born. After sometime of marriage the dispute arose between the parties and it is alleged that due to harassment given by the petitioner/husband she compel to reside separately along with her children. The petitioners have filed an application on 18.10.2024 under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month in the application they averred that they have been completely neglected by the petitioner husband for their maintenance, the respondent No.1 is not having any source of income whereas the petitioner/husband is running a hauler mill and grocery shop from which he is earning Rs. 60,000/- per month apart from his occupation he is having 10 acre of agricultural land from which he is earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per year, therefore, they claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. In reply the petitioner/husband denied his liability and everrd that the respondent No.1 on her own will without any sufficient cause residing separately from him, he has taken every care of his wife and children but due to adamant attitude of the respondent No.1/wife they are residing separately, therefore, they are not entitled for any maintenance. 3 5. Learned family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties partly allowed the application and granted total Rs. 4,000/- per month (Rs. 1000 to respondent No.1/wife, Rs. 1,500/- to each of the children/respondent No. 2 & 3). It is also ordered that the amount of maintenance is to be payable from the date of order of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled for maintenance upto the age of their majority. The said order dated 05.04.2025 is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not challenging the order of maintenance with respect to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 but challenging the order of maintenance with respect to the respondent No.1/wife as she is residing separately without any sufficient cause. In her evidence she admitted that she refused to came back with the petitioner/husband and in the sakhi centre she demanded Rs. 70,000/- and when the petitioner refused to give her Rs. 70,000/- she denied to come back with the petitioner and thus it is amply clear that she herself does not want to live with her husband and in such condition she is not entitled for any maintenance, therefore, the impugned order with respect to the respondent No.1/wife may be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by learned Family Court. 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:- “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: 4 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 (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, 5 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. 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. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that after adverting to the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record, the learned family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondents. 10. The quantum of maintenance is the discretion of the learned Family Court which is to be considered on the basis of the income of the parties their living standard, their day to day requirement of expenses as also the age of the respondents, it also reveals that the respondent No.1/wife has been granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- which in the present cost of living and in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot said to be excessive or exorbitant or the wife is not entitled for the same as she is residing separately 6 along with her two school going children, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Family Court granting total maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondents. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.05.08 18:07:40 +0530