Allahabad High Court
Smt. Maharani vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 July, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 26.05.2022 Delivered on 18.07.2022 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. -3221 of 2007 Revisionist :- Smt. Maharani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- V.M. Sharma,Shivesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 25.08.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Misc. Case No.837/2002 (Smt. Maharani vs. Chokhe Lal), u/s 125 CrPC whereby, the application of revisionist for maintenance has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.
3. As per version of the revisionist, her marriage with opposite party No. 2 has taken place around the year 1990 but she was harassed by the opposite party No. 2 and his family members on account of dowry. Earlier she has filed a case under section 125 CrPC for maintenance vide case No. 550/95, wherein she was awarded maintenance @ 300/pm by order dated 13.10.1997. While the execution proceedings of said case were pending, the opposite party no. 2 took the revisionist to his house and compromised the matter and thus the execution case was dismissed on 04.10.2000 in default. Thereafter, the revisionist lived in her matrimonial life and she has given birth to twins. After some time while the revisionist was pregnant, the opposite party No. 2 and his family members started pressing her to sign the papers of divorce. On 22.03.2002 they took her kutchehary and pressed her to sign the divorce papers and when she refused, they tried to assault her but she was saved by her father and others, who have also reached there and since then she is residing at her parental home. She has given birth to her third child at her parental home.
4. In this backdrop she has filed the case in question under section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for herself and her minor children. By impugned order, the court below granted maintenance to her two minor children @ Rs 300/ pm each but the claim of revisionist for maintenance was rejected. Being aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred present criminal revision.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revision has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance of herself as well as for her two minor children and by impugned order, the court below has granted maintenance to her minor children @ 300/- per month each but the claim of revisionist/wife for maintenance has been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that it is not disputed that revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and that their marriage has taken place about 30-31 years back. The claim of revisionist has been rejected by the court below mainly on the ground that she is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, whereas, there is evidence to show that the revisionist has sufficient reasons and causes to live separately from the husband. The finding of the court below that the revisionist was not coming to her matrimonial home without any just and sufficient reasons, is not based on proper appreciation on evidence. In her application under Section 125 CrPC, the revisionist has alleged that the opposite party no.2 and his family members were pressurising her to make signature on the divorce documents and for that purpose they have taken her to kutchhery and when she refused, she was assaulted by them and since then she is living at her parental home. It was pointed out that in fact after some years of marriage, she was harassed by opposite party no.2 and his family members and she has filed a case no. 550/1995 against applicant under Section 125 CrPC, wherein, she was granted maintenance @ 300/- per month but during pendency of the execution proceedings of said case, in order to avoid the payment of maintenance, opposite party no.2 has compromised the matter and he has brought the revisionist back to the matrimonial home and the said execution case no. 1148/1997 was dismissed in default. Thereafter, she has lived there for several years and she has given birth to twins but later on the opposite party no.2 and his family members have again started harassing her and they used to pressurize her to agree for divorce. It was further submitted that while the third child was in womb of revisionist, the opposite party no.2 and his family members have started harassing her and they used to pressurize her to sign the divorce papers and for that purpose they have even taken her to kutchhery and when she refused to sign on the divorce papers, she was assaulted by them and since then she is living at her parental home and she has given birth to her third child there. It was stated that she has sufficient justification to live separately, as in case she goes to her matrimonial home, she has a genuine apprehension that she may be harmed and harassed and pressed to sign the divorce papers by her husband and his family members. Referring to the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, it is submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. Before adverting to the claim of the parties, it would be useful to refer the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C., which read as under:
''''Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether married or not unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct."
8. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that 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 / Court 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, rather it is an obligation on the part of husband and it is awarded to her so that she can survive. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521]. In case of 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. Again in case of Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, a three-Judge Bench of 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. From above stated case laws the it is quite clear that Section 125 Cr. P.C is a measure of social legislation and it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 has held the grant of maintenance to wife is a measure of social justice. The Court held as under:
"Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 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."
10. In the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 564-565 of 2015, decided on 06.4.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Bai Patel vs. Shyam Kumar Patel 2002 (44) ACC 1102 SC has held as under:
"To put it differently, does the statements made by the wife that she had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and that she was earning Rs. 50/- per day by agricultural operations, disentitle her to receive maintenance from her husband? It is our considered view that such statements without anything more would not be sufficient to deny maintenance to the wife from her husband. It is to be kept in mind that it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife and wife has the right to claim maintenance so long as she stays away from the matrimonial home under compelling circumstances. The wife's right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be denied only in the circumstances provided under sub-section (4) of the said section."
12. Keeping the above mentioned position of law in view, in the instant case it may be seen from the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order that it is not in dispute that revisionist is legally wedded of opposite party no. 2. The case of revisionist has been dismissed mainly on the ground that she is residing separately from her husband without any just reason. It is apparent from record that earlier she has filed case under section 125 CrPC for maintenance vide case No. 550/95, wherein she was awarded maintenance @ 300/pm by order dated 13.10.1997 but during pendency of execution proceedings, both the parties have compromised the matter and she has started residing at her matrimonial life and the execution case was dismissed on 04.10.2000 in default. After that she has resided with opposite party No. 2 for several years and given birth to twins. From this previous conduct of revisionist it appears that she was interested in her matrimonial life and that's why she has again started living in her matrimonial home. The case of revisionist is that she was being pressurised by her husband and his family members to sign the papers for divorce and for that purpose she was even taken to the court. The court below has observed that the opposite party No. 2 has tried his best to bring the revisionist back to his home and she has even misappropriated an amount of Rs 15,000/ of the opposite party No. 2, given to her. Even the Advocate commissioner was sent to her parental house to bring her back to the matrimonial home but she refused. It appears that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the pleadings of the revisionist to the effect that she was being pressurised by her husband and his family member to give consent for divorce and sign the papers of divorce and that this fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party No. 2 in his written statement. Besides that she has also alleged that she was being harassed on account of dowry. The revisionist appears an illiterate and unskilled lady and there is nothing to show that she has any source of income to maintain herself. On the other hand the court below has found that the opposite party No. 2 has sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor children. It is well settled that if a wife has sufficient reason/cause to reside separately from her husband, she can not be denied maintenance merely on the basis of that her husband is ready to bring her back to the matrimonial home. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the provisions enshrined under section 125 CrPC are measures of social justice specially enacted to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and thus these provisions have to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of wife and children. In the instant matter the case of the revisionist she was harassed on account of dowry and pressurised to sign papers for divorce, has not been considered by the court below. Considering entire facts of the matter and evidence on record, it is apparent that the court below committed error by rejecting claim of the revisionist for maintenance. Thus, the impugned order, so far as it relates to the denial of maintenance to the revisionist and the direction that the opposite party may recover Rs 15,000/ from her, is liable to be set aside and therefore the revision deserves to be allowed.
13. The impugned order, so far it relates to the denial/rejection of the revisionist's claim for maintenance and the direction that the opposite party may recover Rs 15,000/ from the revisionist, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Court concerned to pass an order afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law.
14. The revision is allowed in above terms.
15. The summoned record be sent back forthwith with copy of this order.
Order Date :- 18.07.2022 Neeraj