Chattisgarh High Court
Sukul Ram Sahu vs Ku. Kalyani Sahu on 17 December, 2021
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 08.12.2021
Order Delivered on 17.12.2021
CRR No. 501 of 2021
Sukul Ram Sahu, S/o Late Suddhu Ram Sahu, aged about 58 Years,
Sanyantra Sahayak, Grade-2, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Tap
Vidyut Sanyantra, R/o Q.No. N.D.8, Near Junior Club, C.S.E.B.
Colony, Korba- East, Thana, Tahsil and District- Korba- Chhattisgarh.
---Applicant
Versus
Ku. Kalyani Sahu, D/o Shri Sukul Ram Sahu, aged about 29 Years,
Occupation- Unemployed, R/o Ganesh Chowk, Podi Bahar, Thana,
Tahsil and District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---Non-applicant
CRR No. 811 of 2021
Ku. Kalyani Sahu, D/o Shri Sukul Ram Sahu, aged about 29 Years,
Occupation- Unemployed, R/o Ganesh Chowk, Podi Bahar, Korba,
Police Station, Tahsil and District Korba (Chhattisgarh).
----Applicant
Versus
Sukul Ram Sahu, S/o Late Suddhu Ram Sahu, aged about 58 Years,
Plant Assistant Grade-I I, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Tap Vidyut
Sanyantra, R/o Qtr. No. Nd-8, Near Junior Club, C.S.E.B. Colony,
Korba-East, Police Station, Tahsil and District Korba (Chhattisgarh).
----Non-applicant
Present:
Shri B.P. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant in CRR No.501 of 2021 and for
respondent in CRR No.811 of 2021.
Shri Roop R. Naik, Advocate for the applicant in CRR No.811 of 2021 and
for respondent in CRR No.501 of 2021.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
C A V Order
1. Criminal Revision No.501/2021 has been filed by the applicant/father
under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 397 of
CrPC challenging the order dated 08.04.2021 of Family Court, Korba
in Case No.164/2019 granting interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per
month in favour of the non-applicant/daughter.
2. Criminal Revision No.811/2021 has been filed by the
applicant/daughter under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act
against the order dated 17.09.2021 passed in Case No.164/2019 by
the Family Court, Korba whereby her application for issuance of
warrant against the non-applicant/father for recovery of arrears of
interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- and for sending him to
imprisonment for one-one month in default of payment of each of the
monthly interim maintenance, has been kept pending till final disposal
of the case.
3. Since both these revisions are inter-related, they are being disposed
of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the
Family Court i.e. applicant Ku. Kalyani Sahu and non-applicant Sukul
Ram Sahu.
4. It is not in dispute that Ku. Kalyani Sahu is the daughter of Sukul Ram
Sahu. In her application under Section 125 of CrPC, the applicant
averred that she is the unmarried daughter of the non-applicant. After
the death of her mother Rathbai Sahu, behaviour of the non-applicant
changed and he started filthily abusing and ill-treating her. Since 2018
the non-applicant is doing nothing for her maintenance as a result of
which she is facing acute financial and mental problems. She has no
source of income whereas the non-applicant by working as Assistant
Grade-II in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Thermal Power Plant,
Korba is drawing salary of Rs.1,82,244/-, there is Rs.60 lacs in his
provident fund and gratuity, Rs. 2 lacs in State Bank of India, Rs. 5
lacs in the form of Stridhan and 15 tolas gold. Therefore, she prayed
for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the
non-applicant.
5. The Family Court by the order dated 08.04.2021 granted interim
maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the applicant and
fixed the matter for evidence of the applicant on 14.06.2021. However,
during the course of recording of evidence of non-applicant, the
applicant filed an application for issuance of warrant against the non-
applicant for recovery of arrears of interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/-
and for sending him to imprisonment for one-one month in default of
payment of each of the monthly interim maintenance, which has been
kept pending till final disposal of the case.
Criminal Revision No.501/2021:
6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/father submits that the
impugned order of the Family Court is per se illegal and has been
passed ignoring the provisions of Section 125(1) of CrPC, a bare
reading of which makes it clear that an unmarried adult daughter is
entitled for maintenance only if she is suffering from any physical or
mental disability rendering her unable to maintain herself whereas in
the present case, the applicant/daughter is a well educated able-
bodied person. The Court below also overlooked the fact that the non-
applicant is going to retire within four months from the date of filing of
reply and as such, his per month income would be just half of the
amount being received by him. Even otherwise, the amount awarded
in favour of the applicant is very much on the higher side. Lastly, it is
submitted that if the applicant has to claim maintenance, she may file
suit before the Family Court under Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant/daughter
supports the impugned order and submits that the Family Court
considering the hardships being faced by the applicant, the permanent
source of income of the non-applicant and other material available
before it, has rightly awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per
month. If this Court allows the revision of the non-applicant by setting
aside the interim maintenance order of the Court below with liberty to
the applicant to take recourse to Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956, it would give rise to multiplicity of litigation
and cause undue hardship to the applicant. Reliance has been placed
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of
Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and others reported in (2002) 5
SCC 422 and Abhilasha Vs. Prakash and others passed in
Criminal Appeal No.615/2020, judgment dated 15th September, 2020.
Criminal Revision No.811/2021
8. Learned counsel for the applicant/daughter submits that the impugned
order dated 17.9.2021 is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The
Court below ought to have issued a warrant against the non-
applicant/father for non-compliance of its order dated 8.4.2021.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/father
submits that the applicant is not at all entitled for any maintenance
from the non-applicant in view of provisions of Section 125(1) of CrPC.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the daughter of the non-
applicant. She was 29 years old at the time of filing application under
Section 125 of CrPC. It is also not disputed that she is a well educated
girl, who was working as an engineer prior to filing of this application.
No disability, physical or mental, has been shown by her rendering her
unable to maintain herself.
12. In the matter of Abhilasha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
dealing with applicability of Section 125 of CrPC as well as Section 20
of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 observed in para 36
as under:
"36. The purpose and object of Section 125 of CrPC as noted
above is to provide immediate relief to the applicant in a
summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20
read with Section 3(b) of the Act, 1956 contains larger right,
which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the
larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the
proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of the
Act and the legislature never contemplate to burden the
Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125
CrPC to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956."
13. Though in the matter of Jagdish Jugtawat (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court maintained the judgment/order of the High Court
upholding the order of the Family Court which was based on a
combined reading of Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, granting maintenance under Section
125 to the major unmarried daughter till her marriage, but this judgment
is of no help to the applicant/daughter in the present case as the same
was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India while entertaining a special leave
petition to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Para 24 of judgment in
Abhilasha (supra) reads as under:
"24. In the above case, an order was passed by the Family
Court by granting maintenance which was based on
combined reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20
of Act, 1956. Although, the High Court and this Court had
declined to interfere with the order of the Family Court
taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956 under
which the right of maintenance is given to a minor
daughter till her marriage, but the judgment of this Court in
Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) cannot be read to laying down
the ratio that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
filed by the daughter against her father, she is entitled to
maintenance relying on the liability of the father to
maintain her unmarried daughter as contained in Section
20(3) of the Act, 1956. The High Court in exercise of
Criminal Revisional jurisdiction can very well refuse to
interfere with the judgment of Courts below by which
maintenance was granted to unmarried daughter. This
Court while hearing criminal appeal against the above
judgment of High Court was exercising jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and in the facts of
that case, this Court refused to interfere with the judgment
of High Court but in refusal to interfere by this Court, no
ratio can be read in the judgment of Jagdish Jugtawat
(supra) as contended by learned counsel for the
appellant."
14. Thus, if the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Abhilasha (supra) and the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC and
Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, this
Court is of the opinion that the Family Court was not justified in
entertaining the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the
applicant, who is an unmarried 29 years old daughter of the non-
applicant suffering from no physical or mental disability.
15. At this stage, it is deemed appropriate to observe that Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for appeal against every judgment
or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High
Court both on facts and on law. Further, this Section also provides for
revision to the High Court for examining the correctness, legality or
propriety of any order passed by the Family Court under Chapter IX of
Cr.P.C.
16. As per the High Court of C.G. Rules, 2007, appeal under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 is to be heard by the Division Bench and
Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order of the
Family Court passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. is tenable which is to
be heard by the Single Bench of the High Court as per Rule 24.
Therefore, two distinct proceedings cannot be clubbed together looking
to the separate remedy available against them i.e. appeal and revision.
17. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, Criminal Revision No.501/2021
is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the
Family Court granting interim maintenance in favour of the applicant is
hereby set aside. However, the applicant/daughter is at liberty to take
recourse to Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 for claiming any maintenance against her father/non-applicant.
Since the order granting interim maintenance by the Family Court has
been set aside and the application of the applicant/daughter is still
pending consideration before the Family Court, Criminal Revision
No.811/2021 filed by the applicant/daughter is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Akhilesh
