Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit vs Smt. Kirti on 13 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 766
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE
CRR 3215/2018
(Rohit vs. Smt. Kirti)
Indore, dtd. 13/08/2018
Shri S. S. Garg, counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been filed against the order dated 07th May, 2018 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Misc.Case No.721/2017,by which the application filed by the respondent for grant of interim maintenance has been allowed.
The necessary facts for the disposal of present revision in short are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife. The respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintainance on the ground that she has been turned out of her matrmonial house by the applicant because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that the respondent was married to the applicant on 16/04/2014 and in spite of the fact that sufficient dowry including cash amount of Rs.51,000/-, gold ornaments as well as the houshold articles were given, but the applicant and his family members started making demand of Rs.1 lac and accordingly, she has been turned out of her matrimonial house. It is further alleged that the respondent is unemployed and is unable to maintain herself.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact the applicant was badly beaten by the respondent and her family members, as a result of which he was required to 1 2 undergo the medical treatment. Because of the injuries sustained by the applicant due to beating given by the respondent and her family members, now the applicant is not in a position to work properly, as a result of which he has also lost his job. It is further submitted that the applicant had also made a written complaint to the police authorities about the maltreatment and misbehaviour of the respondent. It is further submitted that initially the respondent was working in Call Centre of Electricity Board and was earning Rs.9,185/- per month by way of salay, but with an intention to file an application under Section 125 of CrPC, the respondent has delibereately left her job so that she could claim the maintainance from the applicant.Thus, where the wife herself is able to maintain herself, then she would not be entitled for maintainance.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was badly beaten by the respondent and her family members is concerned, the medical documents of the Month of June, 2016 have been placed on record. In none of the medical documents, it is mentioned that the applicant has sufferred an injury because of beating. On the contrary, in a medical prescription of Dr.Nipun Pauranik, it is mentioned that the applicant is suffering from headache and is also vomiting.The MRI brain of the applicant was conducted. Thus, it is clear that because of some illness the applicant had undergone the medical treatment and he has tried to corelate those medical documents by saying that the applicant was beaten by the respondent and her family members. Even 2 3 otherwise, the applicant had made a written complaint to the SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore on 15/02/2017, in which he had made several allegations against the respondent, but in the said complaint also, he has not uttered any single word with regard to beating by the respondent and her family members in the year 2016. Thus, it is clear that at the first available opportunity, the applicant did not make any allegation against the respondent about the beating. Thus, it is clear that the applicant has tried to corelate the medical prescriptions in order to take advantage by making allegation that he was beaten by the respondent and her family members.Thus, the contention made by the counsel for the applicant that in fact, it was the applicant who was maltreated by the respondent, is rejected.
It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the respondent herself was able to maintain herself and was working in the Call Centre of Electricity Board and with sole intention to file an application under Section 125 of CrPC, she has deliberately left the job is concerned, it is the case of the applicant that the respondent was getting Rs.9,185/ per month by way of salary while she was working in the Call Centre of Electricity Board. It is difficult to accept that in order to get the maintenance from the applicant, the wife would leave her job from where she was earning Rs.9,185/- per month. Even otherwise, it is clear from the order under challenge that the respondent is not in job from 10th March, 2017. Thus, it cannnot be said that the respondent, with deliberate intention has left her job, so that she can claim maintenance from the applicant. Even 3 4 otherwise, it is the primary obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and the wife cannnot be denied maintainance only on the ground that she can earn and maintain herself.
The Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 has held as under:-
''15.While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7 has held as follows: (SCC p. 12, para 8) "8. ... The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been ruled that: (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 by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70 falls within the 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, 4 5 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 ."
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash 1968 SCC Online Del 52 wherein it has been opined thus: (SCC On Line Del para 7)
7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.
From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes her faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There 5 6 may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.'' Thus, where the husband is an able-bodied person, then it cannnot be said that he is not laible to maintain his wife merely on the ground that the husband has meagre source of income. Even otherwise, it appears that only an interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month has been awarded by the trial Court. All the allegations and counter- allegations are to be proved by the parties by leading evidence.Therefore, considering the fact that yet the application under Section 125 of CrPC is to be decided on merits after considering the evidence, which would be led by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for interfering with the order dated 07 th May, 2018 by which the Court below has awarded an interim maintenance of only Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent. Even otherwise, the montly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Family Court cannot be said to be excessive or on a higher side, considering the price index and price of goods of daily needs.
Resultantly, the order dated 07th May, 2018 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Misc.Case No.721/2017 is hereby affirmed.
Before parting with this order, this Court would like to mention that this revision has been decided considering the limited scope of interference and the trial Court is requested 6 7 not to get prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. It is expected that the trial Court shall decide the application under Section 125 of CrPC strictly in accordance with law after considering the evidence, which would be led by the parties.
With the aforesaid observation, this criminal revision is dismissed.
(G. S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.08.16 11:43:39 +05'30' 7