1 2025:CGHC:20807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 564 of 2025 1 - Saroj Kumar S/o Badriprasad Kurrey Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Masan, Post Office Tilkeja, P.S. Urga, Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anita Kurrey W/o Saroj Kumar Kurrey Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Masan, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident Of Village Nagarda, Tahsil Naya Baradwar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 2 - Nilesh Kumar S/o Saroj Kumar Kurrey Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Kurrey, Resident Of Masan, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident Of Village Nagarda, Tahsil Naya Baradwar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 - Devesh Kumar S/o Saroj Kumar Kurrey Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Kurrey, Resident Of Masan, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident Of Village Nagarda, Tahsil Naya Baradwar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Link Family Court Sakti, Disrtrict Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Criminal Case No.23/2023, whereby the total amount of Rs. 6,000/- has been granted to the respondents as monthly maintenance amount which is payable from the date of application i.e. on 17.03.2023. 3. The brief fact of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2009 as per their rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock two children have been born who are respondent Nos. 2 & 3. After sometime of marriage the dispute arose between the parties and it is alleged that the respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty for demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioner/husband. When she disclosed the harassment to her family members they tried to convince the petitioner/husband but he thrown out the respondent No.1/wife from her house along with her children. On 23.04.2016 she made a police complaint against the petitioner in which on 27.06.2016 a compromise was taken place between the parties and thereafter she again started residing with the petitioner. The act of cruelty again started against her and community meeting was also convened but the petitioner had not appeared in the community meeting and thereafter on 07.10.2017 the respondent No.1 lodged a report for dowry harassment in which the FIR has been registered and a criminal case is pending against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. An application filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed vide judgment dated 10.10.2019 by the learned family Court, Korba. 4. On 17.03.2023 the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned family Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner/husband. It is alleged in the application that the petitioner has 3 performed second marriage and out of their wedlock a daughter has also been born. The petitioner has been completely neglected them and has not provided any amount of maintenance for their livelihood. The petitioner/husband is working as a guard in the Lanco Power Plant and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is having 3 acre of agricultural land in which he is earing Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from agricultural produce, therefore, they claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as monthly maintenance amount. 5. While replying the application filed by the respondents the petitioner replied that the petitioner No.1 herself does not want to reside with him and threatened to rope in a false case. he never treated her with cruelty and never demanded any downy. Despite her repeated efforts she has not come with him, he also denied that he performed the second marriage. Since the respondent No.1/wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause she is not entitled for any maintenance. 6. The learned family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties partly allowed the application filed by the present respondents and granted total Rs. 6,000/- per month (Rs. 2,000/- to each of the respondents) as monthly maintenance which is payable from the date of application i.e. 17.03.2023 which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to keep the respondents with him but she herself does not want to reside with him. The amount awarded to the respondents are excessive and the petitioner is having no source of income to pay the maintenance. The amount awarded by the learned family Court is on the basis of assumptions and there is no sufficient evidence on record that the respondent No. 1 is required for the said amount for her maintenance. The impugned order passed by learned family Court is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 9. 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: 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 5 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. 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.” 6 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that Rs. 2,000/- per month is granted as monthly maintenance amount to each of the respondents who are the wife and children of the petitioner. The amount of maintenance is the discretion of the learned family Court which are to be based on evidence produced by the parties with respect to their income, their dependency, their standard of living and day to day expenses in the daily life. Looking to the present cost of living and the age of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 that they are school going children, Rs. 2000/- to each of the respondents per month cannot said to be excessive or exorbitant which has been awarded by the learned family Court. 11. The learned family Court after adverting the entire evidence available on record and also considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, the order granting maintenance to the respondents in which, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned family Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed at the motion state itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.05.07 11:13:06 +0530