Amit S/O Suresh Pali vs Rita D/O Ramavtar Pal (Rita W/O ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 458 Bom

                             -1-            4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

        CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 216 OF 2019

APPELLANT              :     Amit S/o. Suresh Pali, Aged 37 yrs.,
                             Occ. Service, R/o. S.E.C. Railway
                             Colony, Railway Quarter 132/1, Sadar,
                             Mount Road, Nagpur.

                                    //VERSUS//

RESPONDENT             :     Rita D/o. Ramavtar Pal (Rita W/o
                             Amit Pali), Aged 39 yrs., Occ. Private,
                             R/o. C/o. Shri Ramavtar Pal, Plot No.
                             406, Chitnis Nagar, Near Panchwati
                             Ashram, P.S. Sakkardara, Nagpur.

**************************************************************
  Mr. S.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the Appellant.
  Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the Respondent-sole.
**************************************************************
                 CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
                 RESERVED ON : 25th NOVEMBER, 2022.
                 PRONOUNCED ON : 12th JANUARY, 2023.


JUDGMENT

01]         Heard.


02]         Admit. Matter is taken up for final disposal by consent

of the learned advocates for the parties.
                             -2-          4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt



03]         In this criminal revision, the husband-original

respondent has challenged the judgment and order dated 26 th June,

2019, passed in Petition No. E-203/2015, whereby the learned

Judge of the Family Court at Nagpur allowed the petition and

awarded the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- to the

wife-original petitioner No.1 and Rs.7,000/- to his minor

daughter-original petitioner No.2. In this judgment, the parties

would be referred by their nomenclature in the petition filed by the

wife.

04] The petitioner No.1 and the respondent got married

on 27th May, 2011. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 22 nd

March, 2012. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that after

marriage, she went to reside at the house of the respondent. She

was treated properly for one or two months. Thereafter, the

respondent started picking up quarrels with her on flimsy grounds.

The respondent was acting under the influence of his mother. The

mother of the respondent would also quarrel with the petitioner

No.1. The respondent beat her on more than one occasion. The

petitioner No.1 tried to give an understanding to the respondent

and his mother, however, it was of no use. The respondent and his

mother were not happy with her for the reason that the petitioner

-3- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

No.1 did not fetch dowry as per their wish in the marriage. They

used to taunt her on this ground since beginning. They made her

life miserable.

05] It is stated that the respondent dropped the petitioner

No.1 at the place of her parents on 22 nd March, 2012. She gave

birth to petitioner No.2. The respondent did not bother to make

the enquiry as well as pay the hospital expenses. The respondent

and his mother were not happy with the birth of the female child.

She was, therefore, driven out of the matrimonial home. Since the

respondent did not make any effort to establish cohabitation, she

issued a notice through advocate to the respondent. She filed a

petition for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of

the said petition, the matter was referred for mediation and the

matter was settled through mediation. The petitioner No.1 went, as

per the settlement, to reside at the house of the respondent with a

fond hope that there would change in their attitude and behaviour.

She stayed at the house of the respondent for two days. The

respondent and his mother started ill-treating her. She was driven

out of the matrimonial home. Since then, she has taken shelter at

the house of her parents.

-4- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

06] It is stated that she has no source of income. Therefore,

she is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner No.2. The

respondent is doing service in railway and he is earning salary

around Rs.45,000/- per month. The petitioners are the only

dependants of the respondent. The respondent did not bother to

make a provision for the maintenance of the petitioners. The

respondent has failed and neglected to maintain them. The

petitioner No.1 claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-

per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- per month for petitioner

No.2.

07] The respondent opposed the petition. According to the

respondent, the facts stated in the application are false to the

knowledge of the petitioner No.1. According to the respondent, he

is a peace loving person. It is his case that after marriage for few

days only, the petitioner No.1 behaved properly and sensibly with

him and his mother. After few months of the marriage, the

petitioner No.1 started showing her true colour. She was not doing

the household work. She was quarreling with his mother and with

him for petty reasons. She was insisting the respondent to live

separately from his mother. The respondent did not agree to this,

because he was the only person from the family staying at Nagpur

-5- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

to look after his mother. Before the birth of the petitioner No.2,

the petitioner No.1 went to her parents' house without informing

the respondent. The respondent tried to fetch petitioner No.1 back,

however, she did not respond properly.

08] It is further stated that the petitioner No.1, instead of

joining the company of the respondent, filed a petition for

restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was at the stage of

argument when the petitioner No.1 and the respondent resumed

cohabitation on account of the settlement of dispute in mediation.

The respondent took all such positive steps to keep the petitioner

No.1 happy in his family. It is stated that, however, there was no

change in the behaviour of the petitioner No.1. She stayed with the

respondent and his mother for hardly two days and left his house

without his permission. Since then, she has been residing with her

parents. According to the respondent, the petitioner No.1 has

deprived him of the pleasure of her company as well as the pleasure

of the company of his daughter i.e. petitioner No.2. It is further

stated that without any reason, the petitioner No.1 deserted him.

He has further stated that the petitioner No.1 caused mental

torture and cruelty to him and his mother. He, therefore, filed a

petition for divorce. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is not

-6- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

entitled to get the maintenance. The petitioner No.1 is doing

service. On this averment, he opposed the application for

maintenance.

09] At this stage, it is necessary to note that the divorce

petition bearing Petition No.A-520/2015 and the petition for

maintenance were clubbed together in view of the order passed on

31st December, 2016 by the Family Court. The parties led common

evidence in both the matters. The learned Judge decided both the

petitions by a common judgment and order dated 26 th June, 2019.

The learned Judge allowed both the petitions. The decree of

divorce has been granted in the petition filed by the respondent on

the ground of desertion and cruelty. The learned Judge also

allowed the petition filed by the petitioners and quantified the

monthly maintenance as above. It is pertinent to note at this stage

that the petitioner No.1 has filed an appeal before the Division

Bench of this Court and challenged the decree of divorce.

10] Being aggrieved by the order awarding maintenance as

above, the respondent has filed this criminal revision. I have heard

the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record and

proceedings.

-7- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

11] The learned advocate for the respondent submitted

that the petitioner No.1 is not entitled to get the maintenance,

because the decree of divorce has been granted on the grounds of

desertion and cruelty. The learned advocate submitted that the

petitioner No.1, without any sufficient reason, refused to live with

the respondent. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim the

maintenance from the respondent. The learned advocate further

submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a Pharmacist. The learned

advocate, relying upon the document at Exh.45 collectively,

submitted that the petitioner No.1 has been working with M/s.

Rawmax Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. at Nagpur. The learned

Advocate submitted that the respondent has obtained this

document under RTI, which clearly shows that the petitioner No.1

is a Pharmacist with Registration No.126066 and she was

employed at M/s. Rawmax Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. The learned

advocate submitted that this amounts to suppression of material

facts. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the petitioner

No.1 is not entitled to get the maintenance. The learned advocate

further submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has

not taken all these aspects into consideration and passed the order

in favour of the petitioner No.1, which suffers from patent

illegality.

-8- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

12] The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioner No.1 cannot be denied the maintenance due to the

decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The

learned advocate submitted that even after the decree of divorce,

until the petitioner No.1 remains unmarried, she is entitled to

maintenance from the respondent, being a divorced woman. In

order to substantiate his submission, learned advocate relied upon a

decision in the case of Rohtash Singh Vs. Ramendri (Smt.) and

Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 180. The learned advocate

further submitted that in the evidence adduced by the respondent,

he has not uttered a word with regard to the basic allegations made

by the petitioners on the point of their inability to maintain

themselves, the income of the respondent and the failure and

neglect on the part of the respondent to maintain themselves.

Learned advocate pointed out that in his evidence i.e. examination-

in-chief, he has mainly focused on the allegations made against the

petitioner No.1 with regard to her conduct and behaviour. The

learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the evidence of the

petitioner No.1 to substantiate her claim to get the maintenance

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has

literally gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. The learned

advocate further submitted that on the basis of the document at

-9- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

Exh. 45, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion with regard to

the income of the petitioner No.1. The learned advocate further

submitted that the respondent could have examined the witnesses

to substantiate this claim. The learned advocate further submitted

that the respondent in his evidence has categorically admitted that

he on his own dropped the petitioner No.1 at the house of her

parents somewhere in the month of September/October, 2011. The

learned advocate submitted that the petition filed by the wife for

restitution of conjugal rights was an opportunity to the respondent

to make good his contention by admitting the claim of the wife

and consenting for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned

advocate pointed out that in his evidence particularly the cross-

examination, he has admitted that he is not ready to establish the

cohabitation with the petitioner No.1. The learned advocate

submitted that due to bad experience after the settlement, the

petitioner No.1 would have felt that no purpose would be served

by making further attempt to establish the cohabitation with the

respondent and, therefore, that she had withdrawn the proceeding

for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned advocate submitted

that the petitioners have proved that they are entitled to get the

maintenance. It is submitted that the quantified maintenance,

considering the status of the parties and existing rise in prices of

-10- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

the commodity, is just, proper and reasonable.

13] It is undisputed that the marriage between the

petitioner No.1 and the respondent has been dissolved by decree of

divorce. The petition for divorce has been decreed on the ground

of cruelty and desertion. The moot question, therefore, is whether

the same would disentitle the petitioner No.1 to claim the

maintenance from the respondent. It would, therefore, be

profitable to consider the settled legal position from the decision in

the case of Rohtash Singh (supra). The paragraphs 10 and 11 of the

said judgment would be relevant for the purpose of addressing the

issue involved before me. It would, therefore, be appropriate to

reproduce the paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment, which

read thus:

"10. Claim for maintenance under the first part of Section 125 CrPC is based on the subsistence of marriage while claim for maintenance of a divorced wife is based on the foundation provided by Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 125 CrPC. If the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and if she has not remarried, she will be entitled to maintenance allowance. The Calcutta High Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation where the husband had obtained divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife but she was held entitled to maintenance allowance as a divorced wife

-11- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

under Section 125 CrPC and the fact that she had deserted her husband and on that basis a decree for divorce was passed against her was not treated as a bar to her claim for maintenance as a divorced wife. (See: Sukumar Dhibar v. Anjali Dasi.) The Allahabad High Court also, in the instant case, has taken a similar view. We approve these decisions as they represent the correct legal position.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once a decree for divorce was passed against the respondent and marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end, the mutual rights, duties and obligations should also come to an end. He pleaded that in this situation, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain a woman with whom all relations came to an end should also be treated to have come to an end. This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman, she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife. A woman after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was once her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her."

14] In the case of Rohtash Singh (supra), the marriage was

dissolved on the ground of desertion. The prayer made by the wife

-12- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

for maintenance was opposed on this ground. The Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the wife is entitled to claim the maintenance

from former husband, if she cannot maintain herself and remains

unmarried. It is held that the decree of divorce granted on the

ground of desertion in favour of the husband cannot be treated as a

bar to the wife to claim the maintenance from the husband as a

divorced woman. In my view, the law laid down is a complete

answer to the submissions advanced on this point by the learned

advocate for the respondent. I, therefore, conclude that merely

because of the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and

cruelty, the husband would not be absolved of his duty to pay the

maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

15] The second important contention raised is with regard

to the entitlement of wife to receive the maintenance on the

ground that she on her own without a sufficient reason refused to

live with the respondent. The learned advocate in order to

substantiate this argument relied upon sub-section 4 of Section 125

of the Cr.PC. In my view, there is no force in this argument as well.

The couple was blessed with a daughter. It can be seen from the

record and particularly the evidence of the respondent that he was

under the control of his mother. It is his case that the petitioner

-13- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

No.1 would taunt him as mama's boy. In his cross-examination, he

has categorically admitted that the petitioner No.1 stayed in the

matrimonial home for about 2-3 months after the marriage. He has

admitted that on the occasion of Rakshabandhan Festival, he

dropped the petitioner No.1 at the house of her parents. He has

stated that thereafter once or twice, he had gone to her parents to

fetch her back and took her to the matrimonial home. He has

stated that thereafter the petitioner No.1 stayed at the matrimonial

home. He has further admitted that since he had to go to Somnath

with his mother, he had dropped the petitioner No.1 at her parents'

house. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that

thereafter he personally did not go to fetch her back. In my view,

this categorical statement made by the respondent in his cross-

examination would show that he on his own dropped the

petitioner No.1 at her parents' house. In my view, in this context,

the notice issued by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent calling

upon him to resume the cohabitation assumes importance. It is to

be noted that after issuance of the notice by the petitioner No.1, no

serious efforts were made by the respondent to fetch her back. The

petitioner No.1 was constrained to file the petition under Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

During the pendency of the petition for restitution of conjugal

-14- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

rights, the dispute was referred for mediation and the mediation

was successful. The petition was kept pending. The petitioner No.1

joined the company of the respondent at his house. It is the case of

the petitioner No.1 that she stayed at the house of the respondent

for one or two days, but during this period, she was again subjected

to torture and ill-treating. She has stated that she was driven out of

the matrimonial home by the respondent and his mother.

16] In my view, withdrawal of the petition for restitution of

conjugal rights needs to be appreciated in this background. If the

petitioner No.1 had no desire at all to establish the cohabitation

with the respondent, she would not have at all agreed to join the

company of the respondent. It is pertinent to mention at this stage

that by this time, the daughter was born. The petitioner No.1,

therefore, had no alternate than to take a shelter at the house of the

respondent. After the birth of the daughter, the petitioner No.1 was

completely entangled in the marital tie. Therefore, in my view, the

withdrawal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights cannot

be used against the petitioner No.1 to deny her the maintenance.

The only inference in the backdrop of the above facts possible is

that after all these efforts and settlement, she might have seen no

change in the behaviour and attitude of the respondent and her

-15- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

mother and, therefore, she would have lost all the hopes to join and

continue the company of the respondent. The learned Judge of the

Family Court has taken this aspect into consideration. Therefore, in

this case, the petitioner No.1 alone cannot be blamed for this state

of affairs. It is true that the decree of divorce has been granted in

the petition filed by the respondent. The said decree is challenged

by filing an appeal, therefore, it would not be appropriate in this

proceeding to make any further comment on this point.

17] Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner

No.1 alone could not be held responsible for this state of affairs.

The petitioners have categorically stated that they are unable to

maintain themselves and the respondent has not made any

provision for their maintenance. It is undisputed that the petitioner

No.1 with her daughter-petitioner No.2 is residing at the house of

her parents. Even after the decree of divorce, the petitioner No.1

has not re-married. She is, therefore, a divorced woman. Being a

divorced woman, she is entitled to get the maintenance. The

respondent without a whisper in his affidavit of evidence to rebut

the basic contentions of the petitioners on the point of his liability

to maintain them and their inability to maintain themselves, has

produced on record the evidence in the form of Exh.45, to deny

-16- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

the claim of the petitioner No.1. The perusal of the affidavit of

examination-in-chief of the respondent would show that he has not

adduced evidence in rebuttal, to deny the claim of the maintenance

made by the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, his monthly

income and the source of income of the petitioner No.1. In my

view, therefore, this document would be an evidence without

pleading. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that this

document has some evidentiary value, it cannot be relied upon as a

basis to rebut the contention of the petitioner No.1. It is true that

the petitioner No.1 is the registered Pharmacist. The document

indicates that she was employed at a pharmacy shop. The

document is silent with regard to her salary. It is further pertinent

to note that the learned Judge of the Family Court has observed

that this licence was used by the Pharmaceutical Company only for

the period from 17th March, 2017 to 21st July, 2017. The document

at Exh. 45 is dated 3 rd October, 2017. The document is, therefore,

self-explanatory and as such, it proves that after 21 st July, 2017, the

petitioner No.1 had no concern with the M/s. Rawmax

Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. In my view, therefore, this documentary

evidence also looses significance. The evidence of the petitioner

No.1 to substantiate her claim for maintenance on all counts has

gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. The respondent has not

-17- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

led any evidence in the rebuttal to controvert the case of the

petitioner No.1 and the evidence adduced by her. The claim of the

petitioner No.1 cannot be discarded only on the ground that she is

holding a diploma in pharmacy. She has taken shelter with her

daughter at the house of her father. The respondent has not made

any provision for the maintenance of the daughter. The daughter

was born on 22nd March, 2012. It, therefore, remains undisputed

that as on date, the daughter would be more than 10 years old. The

daughter is taking education. On the basis of the evidence adduced

by the petitioner No.1, she has proved that she has no source of

income and able to maintain herself and her daughter. She has

further proved that the respondent despite having sufficient means

has failed and neglected to maintain herself.

18] This would take me to the quantum of the

maintenance. The respondent has not denied either the order

granting maintenance to petitioner No.2 or the quantum of

maintenance awarded by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

He has only disputed the claim of the petitioner No.1. The

respondent is working in railway as a Commercial Clerk. At the

time of the judgment, his gross salary as per 7 th Pay Commission

was Rs.45,000/- to Rs.46,000/- per month. The respondent has

-18- 4.REVN.216.2019. Judgment.odt

admitted that his mother is getting pension and his younger

brother is doing service at Ahmedabad. It, therefore, goes without

saying that no person other than the petitioners are dependant on

the income of the respondent. The respondent is well qualified and

residing in a railway quarter. The petitioner No.1 is also qualified

woman. She is holding a diploma in pharmacy. Considering her

background and the social status, she must be accustomed to lead

standard lifestyle. She is entitled to live, befitting her qualification

and position of the respondent. The learned Judge has taken all

these facts into consideration in quantifying the maintenance. In

this backdrop, applying any standard and particularly the rise in

prices of the essential commodities, the monthly maintenance

quantified at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month is just, reasonable

and proper. In my view, therefore, on all counts, the contention

raised by the respondent-husband cannot be accepted. The

revision, therefore, fails.

                            19]          The revision stands dismissed.




                                                                 (G. A. SANAP, J.)

                  Vijay
Digitally Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR
Personal Assistant
to Hon'ble JUDGE
Signing Date:12.01.2023 12:23