Tula Ram vs Smt. Tulsibai
2022 Latest Caselaw 7605 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                        NAFR


         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           CRR No. 400 of 2019
    Tula Ram S/o Shri Sahduram Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami,
     R/o Village Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---- Applicant
                                        Versus
   1. Smt. Tulsibai W/o Shri Tulas Aged About 22 Years Caste Satnami, R/o
      Post Village Akharbhantha, Tukda, Post Salhejhariya, Police Station
      Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
   2. Minor Ku. Mitesh Aged About 4 Years Through Her Gaurdian, Mother
      Smt. Tulsibai W/o Shri Tula Ram, caste Satnami, R/o Post Village
      Akharbhantha, Tukda, Post Salhejhariya, Police Station Basna,
      District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ---- Respondents

For Applicant                       :         Mr. P.K. Patel, Adv. and
                                              Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Adv.
For Respondents                     :         None, though notice has been
                                              served.



                Hon'ble Justice Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                              Order on Board
15/12/2022

1. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated

08.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund,

District - Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 85/2017

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

of maintenance has been partly allowed in favour of the respondents/

wife and minor daughter to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- each per month

from the date of the order.

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

1 was solemnized with the applicant and from the wedlock a child

respondent No. 2 was born. On 08.11.2017 respondent No. 1-wife

preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for a grant of

maintenance alleging therein that the applicant/husband had an illicit

relationship with a girl namely Asha and also kept her as a wife. It is

also alleged that the applicant/husband used to beat and abused the

respondent/wife and also ousted from the matrimonial house.

Respondent No. 1/wife is unable to maintain herself and her minor

child and the applicant is neglecting to give maintenance, though he

has sufficient means of earning and he has 10 acres of agricultural

land and also doing a job as a painter through which he is earning Rs.

200/- per day, therefore, she prayed to grant of maintenance to the

tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

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

the allegation alleged by the wife and further pleaded that the

respondent/wife preferred an application under Section 494 of the IPC

which was not found proved during the investigation and the

respondent/wife is living separately without any sufficient cause. The

respondent/wife and her parents (mother-father) threatened him for

life and also threatened to implicate a false dowry case. The applicant

tried his level best to settle the dispute and also filed an application

under Sections 97 & 98 of the Cr.P.C. before the SDM Saraipali to

bring the respondent, so the respondent/wife is not entitled to any

maintenance.

4. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties the learned

Family Court has passed the impugned order and granted the

maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- each to the

non-applicants/respondents separately.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the available

records.

6. It is undisputed that the marriage of respondent No. 1/wife was

solemnized with the applicant and through the wedlock a minor child

Ku. Mitesh was born. Respondent/wife has alleged that the applicant

has an illicit relationship with a girl, namely Asha, and also alleged that

the applicant used to beat her, ousted her from the matrimonial house,

and after that neglecting the maintenance. Respondent/wife deposited

that she cannot maintain herself and her minor child.

7. 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. Considering the objectives of the statute as only Rs. 2,000/-

maintenance amount per month has been fixed for the respondents

(wife and minor child), the amount is very nominal 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 at

admission stage itself.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

H.L. Sahu