Chattisgarh High Court

Yogesh Sahu vs Smt. Anju Sahu on 16 April, 2025

                                                                 1




                                                                                   2025:CGHC:17547
                                                                                                   NAFR

                                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                      CRR No. 487 of 2025

                        Yogesh Sahu S/o Shree Karanlal Sahu Aged About 39 Years Currently
                        Residing At Shiv Park Coloney Amleshwar, Ps Amleshwar, Tehsil Patan
                        District Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                             ... Petitioner
                                                              versus
                        Smt. Anju Sahu W/o Yogesh Sahu Aged About 37 Years D/o- Sakil Ram
                        Sahu, Permanent R/o- Near Shehnai Palace Shiv Mandir, Bhavani Nagar
                        (Sainath Coloney) Kota, Tehsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

                                                                                            .. Respondent

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

16/04/2025

1. The petitioner/husband has filed the instant Criminal Revision under

Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 1984, against the impugned

order dated 27-02-2025 passed by the learned Second Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Case No. 1263 of 2024,

Digitally whereby the learned family court has granted an amount of Rs. signed by VEDPRAKASH VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN

4,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of the DEWANGAN Date:

2025.04.28 18:29:43 +0530

respondent/wife which is payable from the date of filing of the

application i.e. 04-10-2024.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the husband of

the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 04-03-2024

as per their rights and rituals. After the marriage, the respondent/wife

started residing in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that after about

15 days of their marriage, the petitioner/husband started harassing

his wife, and he became addicted to consuming Bhang. He used to

beat her, and his behaviour towards her was not good. Their

matrimonial tie started deteriorating and ultimately, the

respondent/wife started residing separately under the compelling

circumstances. Despite efforts made by her, the behaviour of the

petitioner/husband was not corrected and presently she is residing

with her parents.

3. On 04-10-2024, the respondent/wife filed an application under

Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before

the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur,

for grant of maintenance amount from her husband and claimed Rs.

15,000/- per month as maintenance. In the application, she averred

that she does not have any source of her income and is dependent

upon her parents. The petitioner/husband has sufficient income and

earns Rs. 30,000/- per month from his employment. Along with the

application for maintenance, another application for grant of interim

maintenance to the respondent/wife has also been filed by her.

4. The application of the respondent/wife was replied by the

petitioner/husband and he submitted that the respondent/wife herself

does not want to live with him, as he is a low-paid employee in a

private institution. He never treated her with cruelty and not in any

addiction. The respondent/wife has resided only for 15 days with him

and was not obliged to the marital relationship, and her behaviour

towards the petitioner/husband and his family members was not

good. She wanted to live in her own style and had not given any

heed to any suggestions given to her in her family. The

respondent/wife is working as a computer operator at Medical

College Hospital, Raipur, and earning Rs. 13,500/- per month, which

is sufficient for her. The petitioner/husband is a salesman of Rite-on

Pen and hardly earns his salary of Rs. 22,500/-. He is having the

responsibility of his old aged parents and younger brothers and

sisters. The respondent/wife is residing separately without any

sufficient cause and has her own source of income, she is not

entitled to maintenance amount.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned family court has passed the

order on 27-02-2025 and granted Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim

maintenance amount to the respondent/wife, which is payable from

the date of the application. The order dated 27-02-2025 is under

challenge in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

respondent/wife had resided with the petitioner/husband only for

about 15 days, and she, on her own will, left the company of her

husband and is residing with her parents without any sufficient

cause. During her stay with the petitioner/husband in her matrimonial

house, her behaviour was not good, and she had no interest in

maintaining the marital relationship. Despite his efforts, she has not

come back with him. The respondent/wife is residing separately

without any reason, and she is earning Rs. 13,500/- per month from

the job of computer operator at Medical College Hospital, Raipur, and

is not in need of any interim maintenance. The petitioner/husband is

a low-paid employee working in a private institution, having the

liability of his elderly parents and younger brothers and sisters. The

learned family court, without considering the reply filed by the

petitioner/husband, granted interim maintenance, which is liable to be

set aside.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

documents annexed with the petition.

8. The present revision is being 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 upon the petitioner/husband, requirement of

day-to-day expenses as also considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the learned family court awarded Rs.

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

respondent/wife, from the date of application i.e. 04-10-2024. The

allegation and counter-allegation of harassment, income of the

parties, 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 it is shown as arbitrary or capricious.

9. Referring to the case of "Rajnesh v. Neha", 2021 (2) SCC 324, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that interim maintenance should

be awarded based on financial capacity, reasonable needs, and

standard of living, cautioning against relying on unproven claims of

income by either party.

10. 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;

"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"

11. 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)."