Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chinmaya Nayak vs Smt. Smita Nayak on 15 September, 2014

                                  Cr.R. No.1524 of 2008

15.09.2014
                   None present for the parties.
                   This revision under Section 397(1) of the Criminal
             Procedure Code has been filed by the applicant / h usband
             against the order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned
             First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in
             M.J.C. No.244 /2006, whereby the Family Court awarded the
             maintenance amount       of Rs. 3,000 / -    per month      to the
             respondent / wife.

This revision is of the year 2008. Since none is present on behalf of the applicant, it seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the case. Hence, this revision deserves to be dismissed in default.

Perused memo of revision and order under challenge with the record.

Learned Family Court rightly held, after appreciation of evidence, that the respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant.

Ground of impotency was taken by the respondent wife for her separate living. Where husband is impotent, the wife is entitled to maintenance. Impotency of husband would amount to both legal/mental cruelty, wife is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance from husband. Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan, AIR 1981 SC 1972. Where husband, unable to lead sexual life, could not gain potency, it is sufficient ground for the wife to live separately and claim maintenance. Ashok Kumar Singh v. VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi, AIR 1996 SC 333. It is the obligation of the husband to maintain wife, father to maintain children and son to maintain parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 SCC 326. Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta vs. Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485 . An able-bodied person has sufficient means: Kandaswami vs. Angammal AIR 1960 Mad 348:

1960 CrLJ 1098.
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded the maintenance amount.
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below with the record.
(Subhash Kakade) Judge ak/