Chattisgarh High Court
Hayat Tavil Shahi vs Smt. Summaiya Khatoon on 8 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16612
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 679 of 2024
Hayat Tavil Shahi Son Of Shri Syed Matinulhaq Aged About 41 Years
Resident Of Islampur, Post - Makhdumpur, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
versus
Smt. Summaiya Khatoon Wife Of Hayat Tavil Shahi Aged About 30 Years
Daughter Of Hafiz Firoz Ahmad, Resident Of Behind State Bank,
Manendragarh, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 of CRPC against the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, Digitally signed by passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea VEDPRAKASH VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:
2025.04.23 (C.G.), in MCRC No. 170 of 2021, whereby an amount of Rs. 16:52:15 +0530 2 20,000/- per month has been granted in favour of the respondent/ wife as maintenance amount, which is payable from the date of application i.e. from 20.12.2021.
2. It is admitted fact in the case that the marriage between the parties have been solemnized on 30.09.2015 at Manendragarh as per their rites and rituals.
3. The brief facts of the case are that after the marriage, the respondent/wife started residing at her matrimonial house at village Islampur. At the time of their marriage, the parents of the respondent/wife had given sufficient dowry articles to her. It is alleged that the respondent/wife was being harassed by the petitioner/husband and his family members for demand of dowry and thereafter dispute between the parties started for one or other reasons. The petitioner/husband is a Software Engineer and was in job at Pune. He obtained divorce from his first wife. He regularly used to take money from the respondent/wife. He also pressurized for encashment of the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs and demanded money from her. On 27.07.2016, she had gone to Bokaro, but none of his family members have given any attention to her rather, they started demanding money from her. Looking to their behaviour with the respondent/wife, her father took her back to his house, where the respondent/wife had lodged a report under Section 498-A of IPC against the petitioner/husband and his family members. On 20.12.2021, the respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 of CRPC for grant of monthly maintenance amount of 3 Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner/husband. It is averred in the application that due to the harassment given by the petitioner/husband and his family members; she is compelled to reside separately. She is not having any source of income and is a house maker. She is unable to maintain herself and studying for fashion designing, whereas the petitioner/husband is employed as Software Engineer at Hyderabad and earning Rs. 1,25,000/- per month as his salary and therefore, she claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance amount.
4. Replying the application filed by the respondent/wife, the petitioner/ husband has averred in his reply that after the marriage, the respondent/wife resided in her matrimonial house only for 15-20 days and thereafter, she went back to her parents' house. Whatever articles given by the parents of the respondent/wife, has been given by them as the gift articles at the time of marriage. The golden ornaments, which the respondent/wife received at the time of marriage are still with her. Since, the mother of the petitioner/husband was admitted at Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, after marriage ceremony of the brother of the petitioner/husband, they came back to Ranchi for her care. Since, all the family members were resided jointly, all the domestic works were also done by the family members accordingly. The respondent/wife was not interested in living with the petitioner/husband in the joint family and to create a ground for separation, she disclosed that she received burn injuries in her matrimonial house, whereas during the cooking of food, the minor blisters were formed due to the hot oil. The 4 petitioner/husband had tried to keep her happy and spent huge amount in their tourism. He also given lot of money to her for her personal expenses. The petitioner/husband had invested amount in Monetary Advisory Company from which the dividend was regularly receiving by the respondent/wife up to 2019 and thereafter the said company was closed without paying any amount to the depositors. It is also averred that the respondent/wife has made false allegation and he or his family members have never treated her with cruelty for any reason. Had she been treated with cruelty, she must have lodged report to the police, but she did nothing. The petitioner/husband or his family members were not in knowledge that the respondent/wife is having fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. The respondent/wife has pressurized him to stay at Manendragarh in her parents' house. It is also averred that the respondent/wife had assured him that she will come back after 15-20 days, when she was going with her father on 09.05.2016. After various efforts made by the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife came to him along with her parents on 27.07.2016. At that time, the petitioner/husband had lost his job and then the parents of the respondent/wife have insisted him to come to Manendragarh and settle there. The respondent/wife and her parents have continuously pressurized him to settle at Manendragarh and when he refused for the same, the respondent/wife had lodged report under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC. The petitioner/husband had tried his level best to get the matter solved, but he could not succeed. The respondent/wife has also get his bank account transferred to Manendragarh/Chirmiri from Pune in the year 2016. 5
The respondent/wife is a fashion designer and earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month from her job. She is also working in the Rice Mill of her mother, from where she is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. Up to 2019, she got Rs. 10,000/- per month as dividend from Monetary Advisory Company. By suppressing the income and financial capacity of the respondent/wife, she has filed the application for grant of monthly maintenance amount. The petitioner/husband is having liability of his old aged parents and unmarried sister and brother. He is residing at Hyderabad in a rented house and required to spend huge amount in his domestic need. He has to spend huge amount regularly in treatment of his parents. The respondent/wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause and on her own will. The petitioner/husband had filed an application at Bokaro Court for restitution of conjugal rights, but the respondent/wife was not appearing in the proceeding. The respondent/wife is able and capable to earn her livelihood and earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance and her application is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, passed the order on 10.05.2024 and awarded Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance amount. The amount of maintenance payable from the date of application i.e. 20.12.2021. The said order of maintenance is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the learned Family Court has erred in considering the evidence available on record. They should have considered that the respondent/wife has not disclosed true facts before the learned Family Court and suppressed the material facts. He would further submit that the respondent/wife herself had filed a divorce petition before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh and obtained divorce decree from the petitioner/husband, which itself shows that she herself was not willing to reside with the petitioner/husband. The learned Family Court has not appreciated that the respondent/wife has suppressed the material facts about her income, which she admitted in her evidence. The parents of the respondent/wife are running a Rice Mill and also holding immovable property and having sufficient source of income for her maintenance. She also filed her income tax return, but the same has not been produced before the learned Family Court and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner/husband. From the evidence of the respondent/wife, no cruelty has been found as the petitioner/husband and his family members have been acquitted from the offence of Section 498-A/34 of IPC. The respondent/wife is having professional qualification of fashion designing and earning sufficient for her own. The learned Family Court has not appreciated the earning capacity of the respondent/wife and erred in assessing the quantum of maintenance. The respondent/wife is residing separately from her husband without any sufficient cause and earning sufficient amount for herself, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The petitioner/ husband tried his level best to keep his wife with him and he also 7 filed an application at Bokaro for restitution of conjugal rights, despite that the respondent/wife has not joined the company of the petitioner/husband and she obtained decree of divorce, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ wife vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and has submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. The respondent/wife was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner/husband for demand of dowry as well as pressurized her to encash the fixed deposit. When the cruelty was unbearable, she lodged the report to the police, on which the FIR for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was registered against the petitioner/husband and his family members. There may be acquittal from the offence alleged against the petitioner/husband, but the respondent/wife has duly supported her case. The decree of divorce was also granted in favour of the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty that she suffered by cruelty committed by her husband/petitioner. There is no suppression of any material facts in the case. She explained in her evidence that her father had submitted the income tax return in her name also and the Rice Mill is owned by her parents. It is the petitioner/husband, who invested some money in Monetary Advisory Company, from which some dividend was received by the respondent/wife, but subsequently, the said company defrauded their depositors and fled away. The amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which were kept in fixed deposit 8 were also of her parents' money, which was encashed in the account of her parents.
While residing with the petitioner/husband, she joined the fashion designing course, but due to the dispute between the parties, she could not complete her course. The respondent/wife is not having any course of her income and dependent upon her parents. Even when she has obtained divorce from her husband, she is entitled for maintenance from him. He would also submit that it is the legal and moral duty of the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife and to provide proper assistance mentally as well as financially, but he failed to do so, therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court has granted the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records of the case and his revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. The first question arises for consideration would be, whether there is sufficient reason for the respondent/wife to reside separately from her husband or not.
10. The respondent/wife (AW-1) has stated in her evidence that at the time of marriage her parents have deposited Rs. 10 Lakhs in the fixed deposit in her name. She was being pressurized by her husband and his family members to get it realized in their account. In 9 the month of October 2015, her husband left her in her matrimonial house and had gone to Pune in his job. Her mother-in-law and sister- in-law regularly teasing her on the issue of dowry and asked her to bring more dowry from her parents, even they have not provided proper medical treatment, when she received burn injuries on her thumb. She called her parents and had gone to Manendragarh and get treatment from there. Thereafter, she had gone to Pune to her husband, where also he pressurized her for encashment of fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. At that time, his behaviour was very rude and he also taunting her for various reasons. The petitioner/husband was demanded money from her and asked to bring money from her parents and when she refused to do so, he assaulted her. On 27.07.2016 also, she had gone to Bokaro, but looking to the behaviour of her in-laws, her parents took her back to Manendragarh and thereafter on making various efforts, her report has been registered in the FIR on 29.01.2017. She is residing with her parents since May 2016 and during her stay at her parents' house, the petitioner/husband neither taken any care of her nor provided any maintenance amount. She is a student of fashion designing and the petitioner/husband is a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and having monthly income of Rs. 1,25,000/- and she is required an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month towards her maintenance.
In cross-examination, she admitted that she has lodged a case against the petitioner/husband under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, in which she alleged that the petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs from her. She also admitted that she has 10 lodged a report against cruelty for demand of dowry, in which she alleged that the petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs. She further admitted that in both the cases, she alleged that the petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs after coming to her house. She also admitted that in the present case, she alleged that the petitioner/husband demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs. It is also admitted by her that she has not filed any document with respect to the income of her husband. She further admitted that prior to lodging of the report of dowry case, the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs has already been encashed, which was deposited in the account of her mother. She explained that when she was residing in her matrimonial house, her in-laws and her husband pressurized her for encashment of said fixed deposit. Since, it was not asked by her in the dowry case, she has not disclosed in her statement about the same. She further stated that on 05.08.2016, she has lodged report at Manendragarh Police Station, but she has not filed any document of the same. She denied that she has completed her fashion designing course and earning from fashion designing profession.
She admitted that earlier also she had filed an application for grant of maintenance amount, in which she disclosed that she is the student of fashion designing course. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she could not complete her course and thereafter she met with an accident and could not complete her fashion designing course. She rejoined in the month of March 2022. When she was asked that in her affidavit, she has not disclosed about her income, she replied 11 that when she is not having any income, then there is no question of any disclosure of her income.
She also stated in her cross-examination that her mother had opened a Rice Mill at Bhopal in the year 2017 and due to a huge loss in the Rice Mill, it is closed. She admitted that her income tax return is filled up by her father. She admitted that she has not disclosed her entire bank account details in her affidavit submitted in the Court. She further stated that her bank account was being used by her father in his business and therefore, he used to fill up the income tax return in her name. She also denied that she herself did not want to go to her matrimonial house at Bokaro. The petitioner/husband had never tried to keep her with him or has not made any effort for settlement. Even, he has not contacted with her or her parents. Although, she admitted that the petitioner/husband had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights at Bokaro and after one or two occasions, she could not appear there, because she was unable to go to Bokaro alone, as her father and brother were at Bhopal at that time. She admitted that she is residing separately from her husband since last 06 years. In the month of August 2016, she has got her bank account transferred from Pune to Manendragarh. She shown her ignorance that her husband had deposited Rs. 2 Lakhs in her name in IMA Company. The dispute arose between them for the reason of encashment of the fixed deposit and harassment with respect to demand of dowry from her. She further denied that her husband had made efforts to get the matter settled, but she refused to go with him. She denied in her cross-examination that, she was 12 having love affair with another boy and used to WhatsApp chatting with him, for that reason she wanted to reside at Manendragarh.
11. The petitioner/husband has stated in his evidence that after sometime of marriage, he left his wife in her matrimonial house and went back to his job at Pune. Her mother underwent a surgery of her leg and she needs care, but the respondent/wife was not willing to reside there to take care of her mother and she returned back on 26.10.2015 along with her parents. She came to Pune on 20.11.2015. They used to go to Bokaro on some occasion and unfortunately in the month of April 2016, due to lay-off of the company, the petitioner/husband lost his job and at that time, his wife went back to her parents' house. The respondent/wife was working in the Rice Mill of her mother, even before her marriage. They tried to keep him in their house as Ghar-Jamaai, but he refused and returned back to Bokaro. On 27.07.2016, on their call, the respondent/wife and her parents came to Bokaro and again insisted to come to Manendragarh and settle there. Thereafter, he moved an application at Bokaro for restitution of conjugal rights. When the respondent/wife and her parents came to know about the proceeding at Bokaro, they threatened him that if he will not withdraw the case, they will rope him in a false case of dowry and when he has not withdrawn his case, the respondent/wife lodged report to the police at Manendragarh for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
During the mediation proceeding at Bokaro, the respondent/ wife had not appeared and since the dowry case has also been 13 registered, no order would be passed in Family Court, Bokaro in the proceeding initiated by the petitioner/husband. He further stated that when the respondent/wife was residing with him, he transferred money in her account on various occasions. When he lost his job, he received certain money from his company, which was invested in IMA Company from which Rs. 10,000/- per month came as dividend in the bank account of the respondent/wife.
The respondent/wife has got her bank account transferred in the month of August 2016 from Pune to Manendragarh. She has completed her fashion designing course from Bhopal and she is managing the Rice Mill at Manendragarh, from where she is earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. He is a Software Developer at Hyderabad and after deductions, he is receiving Rs. 96,000/- per month. In support of his defence, he relied upon the documents (exhibit D-1 to D-21).
In cross-examination, he admitted that the respondent/wife is his second wife. Divorce has taken place from his first wife. He admitted that his first wife had also lodged a harassment report at South-East Delhi in the year 2021. He admitted that his father is a retired employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and he is having their own house at Bokaro. He denied that he has threatened the respondent/wife for demand of dowry or for any other reason. He also denied that he or his family members had pressurized the respondent/wife for encashment of fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs. He denied every suggestion about the cruelty and harassment given by 14 him and his family members to the respondent/wife. He admitted that the Rice Mill at Manendragarh is owned by the parents of the respondent/wife. He voluntarily stated that the Rice Mill which was opened at Bhopal in the year 2017, is presently closed. He admitted that he has not filed any document with respect to treatment of his mother. His gross pay is Rs. 1,21,000/- per month. He admitted that since there was dowry case pending, therefore, he had not tried to bring her back with him. What is the ultimate outcome of the application (exhibit D-14), he has not filed any document with that respect.
12. Except from these two witnesses i.e. the petitioner/husband (NAW-1) and respondent/wife (AW-1), there is no other evidence led by the parties. There are allegations and counter allegations against each other with respect to their act and conduct during the matrimonial life. Their marriage as well as the decree of divorce obtained by the respondent/wife is not in dispute in the present case. From perusal of the evidence of the parties, it transpires that when the respondent/wife was residing at Pune with the petitioner/husband, there was quarrel between them and the respondent/wife has made allegation that the petitioner/husband demanded money from her and asked to get the fixed deposit encashed. He used to assault her and then, she came back to Manendragarh from Pune. On 27.07.2016, when the respondent/wife again went to Bokaro, she was again asked to get the fixed deposit encashed by her in-laws and considering their conduct, her father took her back with him to Manendragarh and ultimately on 05.08.2016, the police report has 15 been lodged. From the evidence, it clearly reflects that the victim is residing at her parents' house and separately from her husband due to the harassment given by the petitioner/husband to her. A copy of the decree of divorce has also been annexed in the present appeal memo as Annexure A-2 and from perusal of the said judgement and decree, it reflects that the decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent/wife on the ground that the husband has failed to provide maintenance and neglected her for two years, which is a ground for divorce as provided under Section 2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, which has been proved by the respondent/wife and on the ground of cruelty, a decree has been passed in her favour, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the respondent/wife is having sufficient cause to reside separately from her husband, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and I also in agreement with the said finding.
13. 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 16 Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. 1.
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 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." 1 (2015) 6 SCC 353 17
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 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) 18
6. "... Section 125 CrPC 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 [(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 19 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 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."
14. In the matter, the petitioner/husband cross-examined the respondent/ wife that in the proceeding under Section 498-A of IPC and the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent/wife alleged the demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs, whereas in the present case, she made allegations about demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs and thus there is material discrepancies in the allegations at different proceedings, which makes the evidence of the respondent/wife suspicious. The respondent/wife in her evidence in Para 7 has explained the said discrepancies that when the petitioner/husband lost his job, he came 20 to Manendragarh and asked for encashment of the fixed deposit, which was refused by the respondent/wife and then, he demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from the respondent/wife and asked her to bring the same from her father and thus she has duly explained the said discrepancies in the allegations made by her. Even the said discrepancies is trivial in nature, which can be keep aside in the summery proceeding of Section 125 of CRPC.
15. The other defence taken by the petitioner/husband that he has been acquitted from the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and the cruelty has not been proved against him, therefore, the respondent/wife is not entitled for any maintenance as she could not able to prove the cruelty against her. From perusal of the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh (exhibit D-15), it is quite vivid that the petitioner/husband has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, even if the petitioner/husband has been acquitted from the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, in the opinion of this Court the same cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance to the respondent/wife.
16. In the matter of "Narender @ Kala v. Sunita" reported in 2016 SCC Online P&H 7608, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in Para 12 that:-
"12. Acquittal of the petitioner and his family members in dowry demand case is no ground to deny maintenance to the wife and the child. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his liability to maintain the wife and the child on this score. The case in hand is 21 required to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities and no strict standard of proof is required to be proved."
17. The petitioner/husband has further defended his case on the ground that the respondent/wife has suppressed material facts about her income and occupation in the present case. In the evidence, the respondent/wife has explained that at the time of her marriage, her parents have given the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which has been encashed in the bank account of her mother. Her income tax return was filled up by her father in the course of business of his Rice Mill, which normally happens in the family of persons having business in order to save taxes. She also explained that her fashion designing course remain incomplete due to COVID-19 Pandemic and subsequently she continued the same. She admitted the suggestion given by the defence that the Rice Mill of Bhopal is presently closed due to loss. She also explained that the amount deposited by the petitioner/husband in Monetary Advisory Company has also lost as the company itself has fled away.
18. The petitioner/husband has admitted in his evidence in Para 12 that he is a Software Developer at Hyderabad and after deduction, he is receiving monthly salary of Rs. 96,000/-. Although the petitioner/ husband has stated that he is having liability of his old aged father and younger brother, but he is equally liable to maintain his wife as per his own status. Further, in the Civil Suit No. 111-A/2022, a decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the respondent/wife by the Family Court, Manendragarh vide its judgment and decree dated 22 10.05.2024 and the same was passed on the basis of cruelty to wife by the petitioner/husband, which further strengthen the case of the respondent/wife that she is having sufficient cause for residing separately from her husband as she was subjected to cruelty by him.
19. The another defence taken by the petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife is having professional qualification of fashion designing course and earning sufficient amount for her livelihood and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. 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 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 34 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while 23 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, 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 24 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 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 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance :
25
"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.
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 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act."26
20. In the case at hand, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Family Court taking note of social and financial status of both the parties, in particular income of the petitioner/husband and the financial condition of the respondent/wife and also in view of the evidence came on record passed the order granting maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. When a provision has already been made for providing maintenance to the deserted wife, certainly the same has to be followed. Considering the present cost of living, the amount awarded to the respondent/wife cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. 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 adjudged, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
21. In the matter of 'Sunita Kachhawaha and Others v. Anil Kachhawaha' AIR 2015 SC 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled 27 to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court. "
22. From perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts governing the field, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to upset the well- reasoned findings of the learned Family Court granting maintenance to the respondent/wife and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court.
23. Consequently, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved