Allahabad High Court
Kapil Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 March, 2023
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4633 of 2022 Revisionist :- Kapil Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Priyanka Midha,Ram M. Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Bharat Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, in criminal maintenance (Old)/638/2017 (Smt. Reena Chaudhary Vs. Kapil Chaudhary), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., police station Bilari, district Moradabad, whereby, revisionist was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month to opposite party No. 2/wife from the date of filing of application.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned order is against the facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that by impugned order the family court has granted maintenance @ 30,000/- per month without determining the income of revisionist and without considering the financial position of revisionist. Earlier, the revisionist had been working in ''Vertex School of Visual Effects Division of Vertex Volt' but he has already left the said job and now he is unemployed and thus, the quantum of maintenance granted by the court below is quite high and excessive and without any basis. Learned counsel has referred the application of opposite party No.2 filed under Section 125 CrPC and the affidavit filed in support of said application and submitted that there are material contradictions in the version of opposite party No.2 regarding income of revisionist. Referring to the affidavit of revisionist and of opposite party No.2, filed in compliance of direction of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, it was submitted that in view of income of revisionist, the amount of maintenance granted by the court below is on higher side. The property in the name of parents of revisionist cannot be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance. Further, the opposite party No.2 is a highly educated lady, having degree of M.A., and she is capable of earning but this fact has also not been taken into consideration by the court below while awarding the maintenance to the opposite party No.2. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the quantum of maintenance granted by the court below is quite high, unreasonable and arbitrary and thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the revision and argued that earlier the revisionist was working in ''Vertex School of Visual Effects' and was getting salary of Rs.1,30,000/- per month and now he is running ''Mutual Art Company'. The revisionist has not disclosed his salary and correct income and he has concealed material facts regarding his financial status. Learned counsel has referred the cross-examination of revisionist, wherein, he has stated that he is not aware whether he is running any ''Mutual Art Company' or not. Similarly, in his cross examination, the revisionist has admitted that he has four bank accounts but no details of the same was furnished by him in his affidavit or in his evidence. Similarly, the details of income tax returns have also not been provided. The revisionist has admitted in his cross-examination that he is maintaining a Mahindra SUV car. It was submitted that in view of all attending facts and circumstances of the case, and statement of revisionist, it is clear that the revisionist has concealed his financial status and income. The Family Court has considered all relevant facts and evidence of the parties and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
6. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose. In this connection a reference may be made to the case of Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521].
7. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802, the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It was observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It was held the provision provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. In case of Chaturvuj V Sitavai 2008 (2) SCC 316 it has been observed that object of maintenance proceeding is not to punish a person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy who have a moral claim to support.
8. From above-stated case laws, it is quite clear that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a tool for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman's sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities. Thus, section 125 Cr. P.C being is a measure of social legislation, it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children.
9. In the instant case it is not disputed that the opposite party No. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and their marriage has taken place in the year 2012. The opposite party No. 2 / wife has filed application under section 125 CrPC alleging that after her marriage, she was harassed by the revisionist and his family members on account of dowry and they used to demand a Inova car and cash of rupees twenty lakhs as additional dowry. They used to abuse and harass her. She has further alleged that on 10.07.2017 her father and brother tried to make them understand but the revisionist and his family members have abused and manhandled them and she was turned out from matrimonial home and since then she is residing at her parental home. She has further alleged that on 10.12.2017 her husband and his family members came at her parental home and again abused her and her family members. It was alleged that the revisionist is working in ''Vertex school of visual effects' as vice president and getting salary of Rs 130,000/ pm, whereas she has no source of income to maintain herself.
10. The respondent contested the case and filed his written statement, alleging that the allegations of the opposite party No. 2 / wife are false and baseless. Neither any demand of dowry was made nor she was harassed by him and that she has filed the application under section 125 Cr PC by making false and baseless allegations. On 10.07.2017 the opposite party No. 2 has gone with her brother to her parental home at her own free will and she did not want to live at her matrimonial home. She has lodged a false case under section 498-A IPC against the revisionist and his family members. It was further alleged that he is unemployed and has no source of income, whereas the opposite party No. 2 is an educated lady.
11. As stated earlier, it is not disputed that the opposite party No. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. On the basis of averments and evidence of the parties, the Family Court found that the opposite party No. 2 has just and sufficient reasons to stay separately from her husband/ revisionist. The court below further held that opposite party No.2 / wife has no source of income to maintain herself. No credible evidence could be shown in support of allegation that she is earning by taking tuition or that she is doing any business of stitching. Merely because she is an educated lady, having Master degree, it can not be presumed that she has source or means of income to maintain herself. It also emerged from evidence of parties that since month of July 2017, she is staying at her parental house and that she has not been provided any maintenance by the revisionist. The findings of the Family Court on above stated points are based on evidence. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the said findings. Further, in revision the findings on facts can not be disturbed unless it is shown that the same are not based on evidence or suffering from some patent illegality or perversity. In view of above stated stated facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party No. 2 is entitled for maintenance.
12. The main contention raised on behalf of the revisionist is that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive and arbitrary. It is well settled that maintenance allowance should be adequate and similar to the standard with which she would have lived in her matrimonial home. The respondent's mere plea that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve himself of his moral duty to maintain his wife. It is categorical case of the opposite party No. 2 that earlier the revisionist was working in ''Vertex School of Visual Effects, Division of Vertex Volt' and was getting salary of Rs.1,30,000/- per month and now he is running a ''Mutual Art Company'. The revisionist could not specifically deny the allegation that earlier he was working in said ''Vertex School of Visual Effects' and took a plea that he has already left his job and now he is unemployed. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not aware whether he is running any ''Mutual Art Company' or not. This statement speaks a lot and shows that he is concealing his profession and income, and as he could not deny the said fact, thus it can be inferred that he is running the alleged ''mutual art company'. Similarly, in his cross examination, the revisionist has admitted that he has four bank accounts but no the detail of the same was furnished by him in his affidavit or in his evidence. Similarly, the details of income tax returns have also not been provided. After perusing averments and evidence of the revisionist, it is apparent that he has deliberately not disclosed his correct income. The revisionist has admitted in his cross-examination that he is maintaining a Mahindra SUV car. From all attending facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with statement of revisionist, it appears that the revisionist enjoys good financial status and he is person of sufficient means and financial resources. However, it may be noticed that the Court below has granted maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month to opposite party No.2 from the date of filing of application, which is 13.12.2017. Though, as per the law laid down in case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, generally maintenance has to be granted from the date of filing of application, however, in the instant matter there is nothing to show that proceedings of the case under Section 125 CrPC were got delayed by the revisionist. Considering all relevant facts it appears that the quantum of maintenance awarded from the date of filing of application to the date of order, is on higher side. In the attending facts and circumstances, it appears just and proper that the opposite party No.2 be awarded maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month for the period i.e. from the date of filing of application to the date of order, and Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of order, to the opposite party No.2.
13. In view of aforesaid, it is directed that revisionist shall pay maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 13.12.2017 to the date of order i.e. 08.09.2022, to the opposite party No.2 and he shall pay maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month to opposite party No.2 from the date of order. The impugned order stand altered to this extent.
14. The revision is disposed of in above terms.
Order Date :- 01.03.2023 Neeraj