Chattisgarh High Court
Kamlesh Verma vs Smt. Chetna Verma on 3 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:15821
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1078 of 2023
Kamlesh Verma S/o Shri Pardeshi Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Raikheda, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Chetna Verma W/o Shri Kamlesh Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o
Raikheda, Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.), Presently
Residing At Village Mura, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Ku. Palak Verma D/o Kamlesh Verma Aged About 7 Years (Minor)
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chetna Verma, R/o Raikheda,
Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.), Presently Residing At
Village Mura, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by the impugned order dated 17.07.2023, passed by learned Principal VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.11 19:52:51 +0530 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Criminal MCC No. 46 of 2021, whereby an amount of Rs. 8000/- has been granted as monthly maintenance to the present respondents payable from the date of application. It is also ordered that the maintenance amount granted to the respondent No.2 is payable up to her marriage.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and out of their wedlock two children have been born, out of which the respondent No.2 is one of them. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 16.05.2010 as per their rites and rituals. After sometime of marriage, the dispute arose between the parties, and it is alleged that the respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner for demand of dowry and he started beating her. By the lapse of time, the dispute between the parties became more severe and ultimately on 18.06.2019, when the petitioner beat her, she lodged a report to the police, but the police have not taken any action on her report. She was being thrown out by the petitioner from her house along with the respondent No.2 and the son of the respondent No.1, who is elder to the respondent No.2, is with the petitioner.
3. Since the respondent No.1 was thrown out from her matrimonial house and she is having no source of income, she filed an application on 11.02.2020 under Section 125 of CRPC for grant of monthly maintenance amount before the learned Family Court, Raipur. In her application she averred that she is having no source of income and facing hardship financially as well as mentally and she 3 depends upon the help of her relatives. The petitioner/husband is an employee at GMR Factory and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is having agricultural land in his village from which he is earning sufficient amount and thus the petitioner/husband is having sufficient source of income and capable to pay maintenance amount. He is under legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and child and she claimed total Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance amount.
4. By replying the application of the respondents, he denied the averment of the application and have submitted that the behaviour of the respondent No.1 with him and his parents was not good from the very beginning. She had not given any respect to the elderly persons of the family and she herself does not want to live with the petitioner as the petitioner is the low paid employee in the factory. He informed the behaviour of the respondent No.1 to her parents and despite their efforts, she could not understand the situation and had not improved her behaviour. She had lodged a false report against the petitioner and considering the false allegation, the police has not registered any offence against him. The respondent No.1 is working as Salesgirl in the Prakash Saree Centre, Pandari, Raipur and earning Rs. 8000/- per month and able and capable to earn her livelihood. The petitioner is working as a Labourer in GMR Factory and hardly earn Rs. 6000/- per month, in which his entire family including one child and his parents are depends. The respondent No.1 is interested to live as per her own whims. She is having suspicious activity of her character for which she was also punished by the head of the community. 4 Since the respondent No.1 residing separately from the petitioner without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
5. The learned Family Court framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, passed the order on 17.07.2023 and granted Rs. 6000/- to the respondent No.1/wife payable from the date of application and Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No.2/daughter payable from the date of application till her marriage. The said order dated 17.07.2023 is under challenge in the present criminal revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause. There was no reason to reside separately from the petitioner. He has not committed any cruelty with her and never harassed her for demand of dowry or for any other reason. The petitioner is a low paid employee and earning Rs. 8000-9000/- per month, which reflects from his bank account and salary slip, yet the learned Family Court has granted excessive amount of maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month, which is too exorbitant for the petitioner. The petitioner is having liability of their son and other family members. Despite his efforts, she has not joined the company of the petitioner and residing separately on her own will without any reason and earning sufficient amount for her and her daughter. He would also submit that he is not denying the maintenance, but in view of his monthly income, Rs. 8000/- per month is beyond his capacity to pay it to the respondents, therefore, the impugned order of maintenance may be set aside or the amount of maintenance may be reduced.
5
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner is earning Rs. 25,000/- from his employment and is capable to give maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month. The petitioner has submitted his old document of his employment and his salary and presently, he is having sufficient income to pay the maintenance. Looking to the present cost of living, Rs. 8000/- is also on the lower side and the same is also not paying regularly. The respondents are facing financial hardship and depends upon her family members, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and documents annexed with the petition.
9. The scope and object of Section 125 of CRPC has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg' 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 9 and 10 of its judgement has held that:-
"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. (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after 6 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."
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 7 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 8 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 [(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 9 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 Bai2, 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."
10. In the present case, the respondent No.1, who examined herself as AW-1 before the learned Family Court has stated in her evidence as per the averment made in the application under Section 125 of CRPC. In cross-examination, he stated that prior to 2019, she has not made any complaint to any police authority or any judicial institution against the petitioner. She admitted that he has not filed any document with respect to income of her husband. She admitted that the photographs of Article A-1 and A-2 are her photograph and photograph of Article A-3 is the photograph of Prakash Saree Centre, but she denied that she is working there as Salesgirl. She voluntarily stated that she had gone there along with her friends. She further stated that she did not know about the occupation and 10 the nature of work of her husband. She denied that she is having extramarital affairs with other persons. She also admitted that after preliminary enquiry, the police has given the report of non-cognizable offence on her complaint. It is not denied by the petitioner that the respondents are his wife and child and they are residing separately from him.
11. The respondent No.1 has got examined AW-2/Fekuram Verma as her witness, who is her father. He also stated in his evidence that his daughter was being harassed by the petitioner for demand of dowry and ultimately thrown out from her house. He also denied that his daughter is having relation with other persons. From the entire evidence of this witness also, it comes that due to the harassment of the petitioner, the respondents residing separately from him.
12. The petitioner has examined himself as NAW-1 and stated that the behaviour of the respondent No.1 was not good with him and his family members from the time of their marriage and she had not given any respect to the elderly people of his family. She does not want to reside with him and she on her own will and whims residing separately without any sufficient reason. He has never harassed her for any reason. He is earning about Rs. 6000/- per month as a Labourer under a contractor in the GMR Factory. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he has not named any specific person with whom the respondent No.1 is having relation and also has not given any specific instance of the same. He has also not made any complaint to anywhere with respect to her conduct and behaviour. He 11 also admitted that in the photographs of Article A-1 to A-3, it has not reflected that the same was the photographs of Prakash Saree Sales.
13. The petitioner has also examined NAW-2/Thakur Ram Verma and NAW-3/Kamta Verma, who stated in support of the petitioner.
14. From perusal of the materials and evidence produced by the parties, it reflects that both the parties have made allegation and counter allegation against each other, but their relationship have not been denied. The learned Family Court after considering the entire documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties, comes into conclusion that there is a sufficient cause for the respondent/wife to live separately from her husband/petitioner, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no infirmity or perversity, which dragged this Court to interfere with the same.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Sunita Kachhawaha and Others v. Anil Kachhawaha' AIR 2015 SC 554, has observed in Para 8 of its order that:-
"8. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and 12 the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court."
16. While deciding the issue No.2, the learned Family Court after considering the status of the parties and earning capacity of the petitioner/husband as well as the respondent No.1/wife and also the evidence produced by the parties with respect to their financial position, granted Rs. 6000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No.2/daughter. Considering the present cost of living, the amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. The submissions of the petitioner/husband with respect to the fact that the respondent No.1/wife is also earning by working as Salesgirl in a Saree Shop, the object behind the right to maintenance is to be considered. It is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudge, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. In the matter of 'Rajnesh v. Neha' 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 13 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 (2017) 15 SCC 801 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, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, 14 liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is 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 depends on the financial status of the Respondent, and the standard of living that the Applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the Respondent, nor should it be 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 HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the Petitioner/claimant is living separately, the 15 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 D.V. 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 was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v. Smt. Saroj Hegde MANU/DE/1518/2007:140 (2007) DLT 16 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance:
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 as 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. 16
9. Some guess work 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 Code of Criminal Procedure is adjustable against the amount awarded Under Section 24 of the Act."
17. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly considered the application of the respondents and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to them, which is payable from the date of application. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved