Chattisgarh High Court

Jyotish Dubey vs Smt. Bhavna Dubey on 19 June, 2024

                                                                                                           NAFR
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                          CRR No. 599 of 2024
        Jyotish Dubey S/o J.P. Dubey Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Chinese Parlor,
        Ramesh Babu House, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                               ---- Applicant
                                                    Versus
        Smt. Bhavna Dubey W/o Jyotish Dubey Aged About 30 Years R/o H.No. 43
        Sector 01, Shankar Nagar, Near Housing Board, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh
                                                                                           ---- Respondent
                                     (Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant                                          : Smt Indira Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent                                         : None appears

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19.06.2024

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 08.04.2024

passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur

in Case No.398 of 2023, whereby the learned Family court has granted

interim maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife

from the date of application i.e. 18.04.2023.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, marriage between the parties was

solemnized on 30.06.2012, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of

their wedlock, one daughter and son are there, born on 11.09.2017 and

10.01.2020 respectively. Both children are residing with their father/ present

applicant. The dispute arose between the parties and it is alleged that on

16.04.2022, the respondent has been thrown away by the

applicant/husband from his house and since then, she is residing separately

from her husband and children. There are numerous allegations and Crr 599 of 2024

counter allegations against each other, made by the parties. On

18.04.2023, respondent has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for

grant of monthly maintenance, before the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Raipur. Along with the application, an application for grant of interim

maintenance has also been filed by her, in which she averred that in the

year 2022, when the applicant/husband threw her out from his house, she

moved an application for grant of divorce before the learned Family Court,

Raipur, and when the applicant received notice of the said divorce

proceeding, he moved an application for restitution of conjugal rites. In both

the proceeding, parties have entered into compromise on 12.11.2022 before

the National Lok Adalat, and stated that they were willing to reside together.

On the basis of their compromise in the Lok Adalat, proceeding of applicant

as well as the respondent were closed. Thereafter, when the applicant

started harassing the respondent, and again has thrown her out from his

house, she left his company and ultimately, on 18.04.2023, she filed an

application for maintenance. She further alleged in the application that

applicant is earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month through his profession, as

Astrologer, and he is having much immovable property at Bilaspur.

Therefore, she claimed Rs.80,000/- per month as interim maintenance

amount.

3. Applicant denied the pleadings made in the application and submitted

that his wife/respondent left him on her own will without any reason. She

does not want to live with him. When she was leaving the house, she took

Rs.4,50,000/- with her, which was collected by him, without his knowledge.

The behavior and character of the respondent is also suspicious, and she Crr 599 of 2024

was not taking care of the children, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of

interim maintenance.

4. After hearing the parties, learned Family Court has partly allowed the

application filed by the respondent and granted Rs.4,000/- per month as

interim maintenance from the date of application ie from 18.04.2023. This is

the order under challenge in the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent is

residing separately without any sufficient reason. She is having extra

marital relation with one Palash Vishwas, with whom she stayed in his

house on 12.11.2022, for which he made complaint to the Police on

13.11.2022. The respondent project herself to be a 'Nutritionist' and is

earning. She visited various places in relation to her profession. She

further submit that applicant has purchased land in name of his wife, in

which he constructed the house after obtaining loan from the Bank. The

said house is in possession of respondent. During her stay with husband,

her behaviour with him as also with children, was cruel, and she even not

taken care of her minor children. One Maruti Brezza Car, purchased by the

applicant is also in possession of the respondent. It is also submitted that

amount of Rs.3,55,000/-, deposited in the Bank account of the respondent

by the applicant was withdrawn by her. She has taken the gold ornaments

with her , which are valued about 15 Tolas. Learned counsel vehemently

submitted that respondent also does not want to reside with her husband

and she herself had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act for grant of divorce. From the documents annexed with the Crr 599 of 2024

present revision petition, as also photographs annexed with the same, it is

apparent that it is the respondent/wife, whose behaviour with the husband

was not good, and it is the applicant herein, is harassed by his

wife/respondent. Therefore, respondent/wife is not entitled for any interim

maintenance and her application is liable to be dismissed by allowing this

revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Present revision is filed against the order of grant of interim

maintenance amount and final adjudication of the case is still pending

before the learned Family court. After considering the status of the parties,

liability on the applicant, requirement of day-to-day expenses, as also

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned family Court

awarded Rs.4,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the

respondent, from the date of application ie 18.04.2023. The allegation and

counter allegation of harassment, income of the applicant as well as that of

the respondent, requirement of day-to-day expenses, and also the liability

upon the parties, are to be decided by the learned Family Court after due

appreciation of evidence, which is to be led during the trial. The quantum of

maintenance always lies with the discretion of the learned Family Court, and

the said discretion cannot be interfered with, unless and until it is shown as

arbitrary or capricious.

8. A three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vimala(K)

Vs Veeraswami, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375, in para-3 of its judgment

held that;

Crr 599 of 2024

"Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. xxxxxxx"

9. In case of Kirtikant D Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and another,

reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 15

of its judgment as under:

15) The pint in controversy before us however is whether a 'stepmother' can claim maintenance from the step-son or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women. children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation, Having regard to this social object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the Legislature.

consequently, to achieve this objective, in out opinion, a childless step- mother may claim maintenance from her step-son provided she is widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable, When she claims maintenance from her natural born children, she does so in her status as their 'mother'. such an interpretation would be in accord with the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act.1956 because to exclude altogether the personal Law applicable to the parties from consideration in matters of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may not be wholly justified. However, no intention of Legislature can be read in Section 125 of the Code that even though a mother has her real and natural born son or sons and a husband capable of maintaining her, she could still proceed against her step-

Crr 599 of 2024

son to claim maintenance. Since, in this case we are not concerned with, we express no opining, on the question of liability, if any, of the step-son to maintain the step-mother, out of the inherited family estate by the step-son and leave that question to be decided in an appropriate case. Our discussion is confined to the obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only.

10. In case of Chaturbhuj Vs Sitabai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316,

Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-6 of its judgment, has held that:

"6. The object xxxxxxxxxx Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It 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. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503)."

11. At this stage, any observation made by this Court in the entitlement or

quantum of interim maintenance granted by the learned Family Court may

project the ultimate outcome of the application filed under Section 125 of the

CrPC by the respondent/wife.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents

available in the present revision petition, and also the above mentioned

proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no infirmity is

found in the impugned order, and therefore, present Criminal Revision

stands dismissed. However, learned Family Court, Raipur is directed to Crr 599 of 2024

make its earnest endeavour to conclude the trial of the case as early as

possible.

13. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family court for necessary