Bombay High Court
Shaheba Farheen W/O Abdul Haque And 4 ... vs Abdul Haque S/O Mohd. Safi on 24 February, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:1863
Judgment
361 revn42.21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2021
1. Shaheba Farheen w/o Abdul Haque,
aged:49 years, occupation teacher.
2. Wasiya Samin d/o Abdul Haque, aged:
23 years, occupation: student.
3. Sadiya Muskan d/o Abdul Haque,
aged: 18 years, occupation: student.
4. Mohammad Tauqeer d/o Abdul Haque,
aged: 16 years, occupation: student.
Applicant No.4 is a minor and has filed
the present application through his
Mother/Guardian i.e. applicant No.1.
All the applicants are residing at Asir
Colony, Walgoan Road, taluka and
district Amravati (Police Station Gadge
Nagar Amravati). ..... Applicants.
:: V E R S U S ::
Abdul Haque s/o Mohd Safi, aged
about: 48 years, occupation: business
and agriculturist residing at Chaprasi
Pura, Camp Amravati (Police Station
Frezarpura Amravati). ..... Non-applicant.
.....2/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
2
Shri Rahul Dhande, Counsel for Applicants.
Shri S.Raisuddin, Counsel for the Non-applicant.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 28/01/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24/02/2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application is filed by the
applicant/wife and children against the judgment and
order dated 30.11.2020 passed by learned Judge, Family
Court, Amravati in Application No.E-148/2014.
2. By the said judgment and order impugned, learned
Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance to the
applicant Nos.2 and 3 @ Rs.1500/- per month and
applicant No.4 Rs.1000/- from the non-applicant. It is
further directed that the non-applicant shall pay
maintenance @ Rs.1500/- to applicant No.2 Wasiya from
the date of application i.e. 30.12.2014 till 17.11.2020 i.e.
till her marriage. The non-applicant was also directed to
.....3/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
pay maintenance @ Rs.1500/- to the applicant No.3 till
she marries from 30.11.2020. The further direction was
given to pay the maintenance to the applicant No.4 @
Rs.1000/- from 30.12.2014 till he attains majority.
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the
revision application are as under:
Applicant No.1/Shaheba, is legally wedded wife of
the non-applicant and their marriage was performed on
5.6.1997. From the said wedlock, the births of applicant
Nos.2 to 4 took place. As per the allegations, applicant
No.1 was ill-treated by the non-applicant and his family
members and, therefore, she was constrained to leave the
matrimonial house along with her children. She had filed
an application before the Family Court bearing
Application No.E-148/2014 claiming maintenance @
Rs.8000/- per month for applicant No.2 and Rs.5000/-
.....4/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
each for applicant Nos.3 and 4 to incur their expenses
towards education. Learned Judge of the Family Court by
order dated 27.3.2019 dismissed the application despite
of the fact that applicant Nos.2 to 4 are children and
unable to maintain themselves. The said order of the
Family Court was challenged before this court in Revision
Application No.160/2019 which was allowed on 7.2.2020
directing the non-applicant to deposit an amount of
Rs.1.00 lacs before the Family Court by way of interim
maintenance and the Family Court was directed to
consider the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure afresh. The applicant filed pursis
vide Exh.71 contending before the Family Court that she
would adopt her earlier evidence and also entered into
witness box for filing additional documents as to the
expenses of education of her children. The Family Court
without considering the evidence granted maintenance by
.....5/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
directing to pay a very meager amount. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the same, the present revision is
preferred by the applicants.
4. Heard learned counsel Shri Rahul Dhande for the
applicants and learned counsel Shri S.Raisuddin for the
non-applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants invited my
attention towards the evidence of applicant No.1 adduced
vide Exh.30 and submitted that the evidence of the
applicant shows that the non-applicant is having sufficient
means to maintain himself as well as the applicant Nos.2
to 4. The applicant No.1 though is serving as a Teacher in
a college, she has to incur the expenses towards rent of
the accommodation and expenses towards education of
the children. The applicant No.2 at the relevant time was
studying in B.Sc. Final Year, applicant No.3 was studying
.....6/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
in 11th Std. and applicant No.4 was studying in 8 th Std..
The non-applicant is running Auto Deals and Travels as
"Safal Travels". He is also having an agricultural land and
thus having sufficient means.
6. The cross examination of applicant No.1 shows
that she is drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and
in the year 2013 she was getting salary of Rs.45,000/-. It
was suggested that she has no documentary evidence to
show that she is residing on rental basis which she has
admitted. She has also admitted that she purchased one
plot for consideration of Rs.7,20,000/- and now she is
residing in the house constructed on her plot. She further
admitted that she has not filed any documentary evidence
in respect of "Safal Travels".
.....7/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
7. Besides her oral evidence, she relied upon 7/12
extract showing the name of the non-applicant as owner
of the agricultural land to the extent of 80R.
8. The non-applicant has also adduced his evidence
and denied the contentions. It is stated by him that the
applicant No.1 is working as a Teacher in the Government
School and drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- and is residing
in her own house. He is doing the private labour work
and earns Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- and, thus, he is not
having sufficient means to give the maintenance amount
to the applicant Nos.2 to 4.
9. Learned Judge of the Family Court had considered
the entire evidence and held that as far as refusal/neglect
is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on record to
show that the applicant No.1 was refused and neglected
by the non-applicant. The evidence of the applicant NO.1
.....8/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
on the point of refusal and neglect is remained
unshattered. As to the sufficient means, learned Judge of
the Family Court held that the applicant No.1 is earning
handsome amount which is increased subsequently but as
far as the non-applicant is concerned, he is doing the
labour work and granted maintenance as the aforesaid.
10. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire
evidence on record, as far as refusal and neglect are
concerned, the applicant filed on record the certified
copies of the complaint filed by her which is at Exh.40.
The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police
also substantiated the contention that the applicant No.1
was ill-treated and constrained to leave the matrimonial
house.
11. Coming to the aspect of sufficient means, learned
Judge of the Family Court has considered that the non-
.....9/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
applicant is doing labour work and earning Rs.5000/- to
Rs.6000/- and accordingly granted maintenance.
12. Section 125 of the Code is meant to achieve a
social purpose. The object is to prevent destitution. It
provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing
and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is
made by the husband to negate the claim of the neglected
wife for one or the other reason, the court has to ascertain
from the evidence.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.Abdul
Samad vs.. The State of Telangana, reported in (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 1686 has observed that, "in this context, I
would like to advert to the vulnerability of married
women in India who do not have an independent source
of income or who do not have access to monetary
resources in their households particularly for their
.....10/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
personal expenses. In Indian society, it is an established
practice that once a daughter is married, she resides with
her husband and/or his family unless due to exigency of
career or such other reason she has to reside elsewhere.
In the case of a woman who has an independent source of
income, she may be financially endowed and may not be
totally dependent on her husband and his family,
whatsoever and is totally dependent for her financial
resources on her husband and on his family.
14. In the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, reported in
2008(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 644 while interpreting phrase
"unable to maintain herself", the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that same phrase would mean that means available to the
deserted wife while she was living with her husband and
would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife
after desertion to survive somehow.
.....11/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
15. Thus, the object of maintenance proceeding is to be
taken into consideration. The provision of maintenance
aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social
justice or equality and dignity of the individual and while
dealing with cases thereunder. The inherent and
fundamental principle behind Section 125 of the Code is
the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as
the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when
she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
16. In view of Section 125 of the Code, the children,
who are unable to maintain themselves, being minor, are
also entitled for grant of maintenance.
17. In the case in hand, though the non-applicant
claimed that he is working as a labour and is not having
sufficient means to grant maintenance, the documents
filed on record show that he is holding an agricultural
.....12/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
land as well as he filed one criminal complaint vide
Criminal Case No.70/2015 against one Ganesh Aushikar
wherein he specifically stated that he runs in Auto Deal
and Finance Business. In a private complaint filed by him
against one Dheeraj Bhoyar, also he has stated that he is
running business under the name and style as "Nirdishta
Pratishthan". Exh.49 is the certified copy of the
complaint filed by the non-applicant in the court CJM at
Amravati and Exh.48 is the certified copy of the FIR
lodged by the non-applicant. These two documents are
not considered by learned Judge of the Family Court
while granting maintenance.
18. It is not disputed that at the relevant time all three
children were taking education. The applicant No.2 was
taking education in college and was admitted for
graduation in B.Sc. and other two applicants were also
taking education. There is no dispute that the applicant
.....13/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
No.1 was serving as a Teacher and drawing salary of
Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. At the same time, she has to
incur the expenses towards the education of the children,
towards their food clothing, and their basic needs. These
aspects ought to have been considered by learned Judge
of the Family Court while granting the maintenance.
Admittedly, the non-applicant has not came before the
court with clean hands and made a false statement that
he is doing labour work which is contrary to his pleading
in Exhs.48 and 49.
19. The right of unmarried daughters to claim
maintenance is extended till they marry so also as to the
rights of the son of getting maintenance till he attains
majority and becomes independent.
20. Thus, the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for grant
of maintenance.
.....14/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
21. Admittedly, there is no exact evidence as to the
actual income of the non-applicant, but considering the
said evidence, some guesswork needs to be done.
22. Considering the non-applicant is running business of
travells, amount of Rs.5000/- to the applicant No.2 from
30.12.2014 to 17.11.2020, till she marries, would be in the
interests of justice. The applicant No.3 who is taking education
is also entitled for maintenance from 30.12.2014 @ Rs.8000
till she performs marriage and the applicant No.4 who is taking
education is also entitled for maintenance @ Rs.8000/- till he
attains the majority and becomes independent.
23. For all above these reasons, the judgment and order
impugned stands modified by allowing this revision partly.
Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Revision Application is allowed partly.
.....15/-
Judgment
361 revn42.21
(2) The non-applicant shall pay maintenance @
Rs.5000/- to applicant No.2 Wasiya from the date of
application i.e. 30.12.2014 to 17.11.2020 i.e. till her
marriage.
(3) The non-applicant shall pay maintenance @
Rs.8000/- to applicant No.3 Sadiya from the date of
application i.e. 30.12.2014 till she performs marriage.
(4) The non-applicant shall also pay maintenance @
Rs.8000/- to applicant No.4 from the date of application i.e.
30.12.2014, till he attains the majority and becomes independent.
(5) The non-applicant shall also pay the costs of the
application of Rs.5000/-.
Revision stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 25/02/2025 15:41:47
