Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1269 (ALL)

Shivmati Devi v. State Of U. P.

2020-11-02

RAJ BEER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar in Criminal Case No.51 of 2020 (Shivmati Devi Vs. Sudama), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kasaya, District Kushinagar, whereby maintenance of Rs.1000/-per month has been granted in favour of revisionist. This revision has been filed for enhancement of said maintenance from Rs 1000/ pm to Rs 15,000/ pm. 2. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 but as she was harassed and neglected by opposite party no.2, thus, she has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but by the impugned order the quantum of maintenance granted by Court below is quite low and in total disregard to the evidence on record. It was submitted that opposite party no.2 is a government employee working in M.E.A.S. and his salary is about Rs.50,000/-per month. Besides that he has some other income from properties and his total income is Rs.60,000/-per month. Even the witness of opposite party no.2 has accepted the fact that salary of opposite party no. 2 is Rs 50,000/-per month but despite that the Court below has awarded maintenance of meager amount of Rs.1,000/-per month, which is insufficient for her maintenance. It was submitted that revisionist is an unskilled lady aged about 53-54 years and she has no source of income to maintain herself. 3. Learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed and argued that the Court below has considered entire relevant facts and there is no illegality in the impugned order. It was submitted that revisionist was residing at the house of opposite party no.2 and that she was able to maintain herself but despite that she has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Further the major son of opposite party no. 2 is also residing with revisionist and he has sufficient income from coaching classes and he bears the expenses of maintenance of revisionist. It was further submitted that the respondent is suffering from ailment and sufficient amount has been spent in his treatment and that he is on the verge of retirement and thus, the maintenance granted by the court below is appropriate. 4. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. It was further submitted that the respondent is suffering from ailment and sufficient amount has been spent in his treatment and that he is on the verge of retirement and thus, the maintenance granted by the court below is appropriate. 4. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 5. At the outset it may be observed that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is neglected and compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. (Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan 2015 (5) SCC 705 ). That sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is neglected or constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate and co-menstruate to their status and financial position so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. No doubt an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refused to maintain the wife. If the husband has sufficient means to provide maintenance, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the Apex Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 7 has held :- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." 6. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as held in case of Captain Ramesh Chander kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 . Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty rather it is awarded to the wife so that she can survive. This being the position in law, it is obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. 7. In the instant case it is not disputed that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 . On the basis of evidence the court below has found that she is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. However, it is apparent that the court below has granted maintenance of merely Rs 1000/ pm in total disregard to the evidence and without considering the financial position and status of husband. Perusal of record shows that it is not in dispute that the opposite party no. 2 is a government employee and he is working in M.E.S. Core. Though revisionist has alleged that the opposite party no. 2 has total income of Rs. 80,000/ pm, however, the witness of opposite party no. 2 has stated that salary of opposite party no. 2 is about Rs.50,000/-per month. But despite there being such evidence, the Court below has awarded a meager amount of Rs.1,000/-per month as maintenance. No doubt it has come in evidence that the revisionist was residing in premises of opposite party no. 2, whereas the opposite party no. 2 was residing in some other premises allegedly with some concubine but in view of income and means of opposite party no. 2, that fact would not justify the quantum of maintenance as low as Rs 1000/ pm. 2, whereas the opposite party no. 2 was residing in some other premises allegedly with some concubine but in view of income and means of opposite party no. 2, that fact would not justify the quantum of maintenance as low as Rs 1000/ pm. Another fact which weighed before the court below is that the major son of revisionist was residing with her but there is no satisfactory evidence that her son has some job or income to maintain his mother. Considering entire facts and evidence, this court has no hesitation in holding that the amount of maintenance granted by court below is quite low and highly unreasonable and in total disregard to facts and law. Considering evidence of parties, income and means of opposite party no. 2 and financial position and status of the husband/ opposite party no.2, this court is of view that maintenance at the rate of Rs 6000/ pm would be a reasonable and proper amount of maintenance for the revisionist. 8. In view of aforesaid the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below by impugned order is enhanced from Rs. 1000/ pm to Rs 6000/ (six thousands only) / pm. Accordingly the opposite party is directed to pay maintenance of 7000/ pm to revisionist from the date of impugned order. The impugned order stand modified to this extent. 9. Revision is partly allowed in above terms.