Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Kumar vs Smt. Durga on 21 August, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 Criminal Revision No.942/2017
(Vinay Kumar Vs. Smt. Durga and another)
Indore, Dated : 21/08/2018
Shri Vismit Panot, Counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission. This Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act has been filed challenging the order dated 10-6-2017 passed by 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C. No.942/2010, by which the application filed by the respondents has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- per month to the respondents no.1 and 2, respectively.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that she was married to the applicant on 8-3-2002 as per Hindu rites and rituals and gave birth to the respondent no.2. The applicant started harassing her for want of dowry and a motorcycle. It was also alleged that police report was also lodged with regard to the atrocities committed by the applicant and the applicant has ousted the respondents from her matrimonial house, without there being any good reason and the respondents are unable to maintain themselves.
The applicant filed his reply and denied allegations. However, the paternity of the respondent no.2 has not been challenged.
The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties, by order dated 10-6-2017 passed in M.J.C. No.942/2010, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 Criminal Revision No.942/2017 (Vinay Kumar Vs. Smt. Durga and another) and Rs. 2000/- per month to the respondents no.1 and 2 respectively.
Challenging the order passed by the Court below, the Counsel for the applicant has confined his arguments to the quantum of maintenance, awarded by the Trial Court. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the Trial Court itself has assessed the income of the applicant at Rs.5000- 5500/- per month and, therefore, it should not have awarded the maintenance of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- per month to the respondents respectively.
Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the applicant.
The applicant had claimed before the Trial Court that his monthly income is Rs.5000-5500/-, which has not been accepted by the Trial Court. Although the applicant had filed a certificate issued by Satyam Petroleum, Chhindwara to allege that he is working in the said Petrol Pump as a Salesman, but the applicant did not examine the owner of the Petrol Pump to prove the said certificate. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has refused to accept the monthly income of the applicant as Rs. 5000-5500/- per month only.
Now the next question for determination would be that where the applicant/husband has suppressed his real income from the Court, then what maintenance amount should be awarded to the wife and the child?
The Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has held as under :-
''15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
3 Criminal Revision No.942/2017 (Vinay Kumar Vs. Smt. Durga and another) 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, 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 ."
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 Criminal Revision No.942/2017 (Vinay Kumar Vs. Smt. Durga and another)
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.'' Thus, where the husband is an able-bodied person and has suppressed his income from the Court, then a presumption against him can be drawn. To maintain the wife and the child is the legal liability of the husband/father. Thus, the applicant cannot refuse to pay maintenance to his wife and child only on the ground that either, he does not have any income or his income is very less. However, for considering the quantum of maintenance, the financial status of the parties is also one of the important consideration.
Thus, considering the price index, the price of the goods THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 Criminal Revision No.942/2017 (Vinay Kumar Vs. Smt. Durga and another) of daily needs as well as the inflation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- per month, granted to the respondents no.1 and 2 respectively, cannot be said to be on a higher side.
Accordingly, the order dated 10-6-2017 passed by 1 st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Indore in M.J.C. No.942/2010 is hereby affirmed.
The Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2018.08.23 13:20:23 +05'30'