Hemlal vs Smt. Anita Sahu
2022 Latest Caselaw 7557 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                           NAFR


         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            CRR No. 954 of 2022
    Hemlal S/o Khikram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Salhe,
     Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Applicant
                                      Versus
   1. Smt. Anita Sahu W/o Hemlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
      Deradeeh, P.S. Giraudhapuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-
      Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
   2. Moksh Sahu S/o Hemlal Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minors Through
      Legal Guardian Mother Anita Sahu W/o Hemlal Sahu R/o Village
      Deradeeh, P.S. Giraudhapuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-
      Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.
   3. Ku. Bhavi Sahu D/o Hemlal Sahu Aged About 2 Years Minors Through
      Legal Guardian Mother Anita Sahu W/o Hemlal Sahu R/o Village
      Deradeeh, P.S. Giraudhapuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-
      Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Respondents

For Applicant                     :         Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents                   :         Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Adv. and
                                            Mr. Akash Agrawal, Adv.



                Hon'ble Justice Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                               Order on Board
14/12/2022

1. This matter is heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated

13.07.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Balaudabazar, District -

Balaudabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 120/2021

whereby the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant

of maintenance by the respondents has been partly allowed and

directed to the applicant to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-

each, in total Rs. 4,500/- per month from the date of the order. Hence,

this revision has been filed to set aside the order and reduce the

quantum of the maintenance.

3. It is undisputed that the marriage of the non-applicant/respondent No.

1 was solemnized with the applicant by Chudi Pratha on 12.02.2018

and from the wedlock children respondents No. 2 and 3 were born.

Respondent No. 1-wife preferred an application under Section 125 of

the Cr.P.C. for a grant of maintenance on 25th August, 2021 alleging

therein that after 15 days of marriage the applicant and his parents

(mother-father) started harassing for bringing less dowry and also

ousted from the matrimonial house, therefore, the wife-respondent No.

1 along with her children is residing in her parental house at village

Deradeeh. Wife/respondent No. 1 has also lodged a complaint before

the Superintendent of Police in writing on 23rd August, 2021 the wife

has been unable to maintain herself and their children and the

applicant-husband is neglecting to give maintenance. The applicant-

husband is having 3 acres of irrigated land through which he earned

Rs. 1,50,000/- per year and also works as an electrician and runs a

mobile shop in the name of Chatur Mobile at village Chhind through

which the applicant has earned Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, the

respondent-wife had preferred an application to grant of maintenance

to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant-husband in his reply has denied

the allegation alleged by the wife and further pleaded that wife has

resided in her parental house voluntarily without any sufficient cause

and it has been averred that the wife is cruel in nature and she has not

behaved properly with him and with his parents and she has also

beaten to him. The applicant-husband has tried his level best to settle

the dispute even though he sometimes resided in the parental house

of the wife but the father of the wife had again compelled to sell all the

agricultural land and to live in the parental house of the wife, therefore,

he prayed to dismiss the application.

5. After appreciation of the evidence the trial Court has passed the

impugned order and granted the maintenance to the tune of Rs.

1,500/- each to the non-applicants/respondents separately.

6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

impugned order is illegal as the respondent-wife left the house without

any reason. The applicant is earning only Rs. 5-6 thousand per month.

Therefore, the amount of maintenance fixed by the trial Court is

excessive in nature, so he prays to reduce the quantum fixed by the

trial Court, further, the wife is living separately without any sufficient

cause in her parental house, therefore, the impugned order deserves

to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support

the impugned order and submit that the order passed by the trial Court

is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He further

submits that it is undisputed the relationship of the applicant, wife and

their minor children and the wife specifically alleged that due to the

cruel behaviour of the husband and his family members for which she

has also made a written complaint before the police authority due to

such situation and further she was ousted from the matrimonial house

in such circumstances she is living in the parental house and the

husband/applicant has neglecting to give maintenance to the wife and

the minor children, though he has sufficient means of income and the

wife has also deposited that she is unable to maintain herself and their

minor children. In such circumstances, the trial Court has allowed the

application for a grant of maintenance. In the case of Dukhtar Jahan

v. Mohd. Farooq, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 624, it was specifically

held that the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is of a summary

nature and is intended to enable wife and children in a catena of

judgments of the Supreme Court has been held that the said provision

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. Even it is also well

settled that the husband is required to earn money even by physical

labour if he is an able body and could not avoid his obligation, except

on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.

8. So, this Court finds that the trial Court after considering the financial

aspect of the parties a very nominal amount to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-

each i.e. about Rs. 50 per day has been fixed which is proper and

reasonable.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the

impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which

requires to interfere invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the revision is bereft of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

H.L. Sahu