R. Santosh vs Smt. Dipti Santosh
2023 Latest Caselaw 829 Chatt

                               -1-



                                                             NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRR No. 141 of 2023

    R. Santosh, S/o Shri A.N. Ramchandran, Aged About 49
     Years, R/o house No. 337, Street No. 1/8 Smriti Nagar, Post
     Smriti Nagar P.S. Supela Bhilai, Tehsil and District - Durg
     (C.G.).                                     ---- Petitioner

                            Versus

  1.

Smt. Dipti Santosh, W/o Shri R Santosh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o House No. 603, Block - E, Royal City Flat, Borsi, Durg, Tehsil and District - Durg (C.G.).

2. Ku. Shreya Santosh, D/o Shri R. Santosh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o House No. 603, Block - E, Royal City Flat, Borsi, Durg, Tehsil and District - Durg (C.G.). ---- Non-Applicants

For Applicant : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.02.2023

Heard.

1) The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.01.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh, whereby learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 8,000/- to non-applicant No.2/daughter.

2) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the non-applicant No.1 is working on the post of Assistant Professor and she is earning Rs. 43,000/- per month, therefore, according to the Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., she is able to maintain herself, and she is not entitled for grant of interim maintenance. He would further submit that learned Family Court has not considered this aspect while deciding

the application for grant of interim maintenance. He would also submit that he is ready to pay the maintain to the non- applicant No.2/daughter, who is aged about 20 years.

3) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order.

4) It appears that application has been filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the non-applicants, who are wife and daughter as the applicant/husband has neglected to maintain them. Non-Applicant No.1, for herself, claimed Rs. 29,000/- and for her daughter/applicant No.2 Rs. 21,000/-.

5) It is pleaded that the applicant/husband is working in the Neco Steel Plant and he is earning Rs. 70,000/- per month. The parties had filed affidavits before the learned Family Court in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha and another1. Non-Applicant No.1 has stated that she is posted as Assistant Professor and she is earning Rs. 43,000/- per month. She has further stated that non-applicant No.2/daughter is suffering from Schizophrenia and she needs medical care and proper attention, whereas, applicant/husband has stated that he is working in a private company i.e. Neco Steel Plant and he is getting salary of Rs.46,000/- per month, and he has to maintain his old father, therefore, it is very difficult for him to pay interim maintenance to the non-applicants.

6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra) has held that if the wife is working, it cannot be a ground to deny her maintenance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"(c) Where wife is earning some income -- Obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is higher:

The obligation of the husband to provide 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324

maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. Thus, the Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. In fact, furthermore, merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, an cannot be allowed to mean mere survival."

7) Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra) and finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am not inclined to entertain this criminal revision and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim