Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 281 (MP)

Sameera@Sunita Tomar v. Shailendra Singh Tomar

2021-03-01

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 19(4) of Family Courts Act has been filed against the order dated 16.9.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind by which the the Court below has awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3000/- each to applicants No.2 and 3. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicants filed an application under section 125 of CrPC against the respondent before the Court below, which was allowed by order dated 16.9.2019 and it was directed that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.4000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3000/- each to applicants No.2 and 3, by way of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicants have filed the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant No.1 is suffering from stone in gallbladder. The behaviour of the respondent towards the applicants is very cruel, due to which the applicant No.1 is compelled to reside in her parental house along with applicants No.2 and 3. The applicants prayed before the Court below for grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.30000/- per month as interim maintenance as the respondent is in the business of motor transport and earning Rs.1.00 lac per month. The applicant is immediately required for undergoing operation of gallbladder which would be costing around Rs.50000/-. Hence, prays for enhancement of amount of interim maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions and has submitted that the facts mentioned in the revision petition have no basis. The applicant No.1 along with her daughters are intentionally avoiding to reside with the present respondent and residing separately. It is further submitted that the respondent is not the owner of bus company rather his job is to call the passengers to travel through buses and the respondent is under huge debts on account of non-payment of vehicles' loan. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that under Right to Information Act various documents have been filed which are annexed with the petition which shows that the respondent is owner of various buses. The statements of the respondent itself shows that he is having capacity to make payment of interim maintenance as claimed by the applicants. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that under Right to Information Act various documents have been filed which are annexed with the petition which shows that the respondent is owner of various buses. The statements of the respondent itself shows that he is having capacity to make payment of interim maintenance as claimed by the applicants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. 7. On perusal of available record, it is apparent that the respondent is bus owner and is running bus company. The copies of the documents submitted by the applicant prima facie shows that the respondent is having much capacity to pay the interim maintenance. 8. When the wife has been turned out of her matrimonial house and she is compelled to stay in her parents house, then it cannot be said that the husband is not liable to maintain his wife. When the wife is ousted from her matrimonial house, she may not only suffer physical hardships but she may also suffer mental hardships. She also loses the company of a person on whom she had deposed faith and had decided to live with him as his wife. Marriage is not a mere formality or a ritual. Marriage is a ceremony where two souls get united and the wife, in the company of her husband, feels protected from all odds and when she is deprived of the company of her husband, then she may suffer mental harassment/depression. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife does not come to an end even after the separation because of disputes between him and his wife. The husband is under obligation to provide the maintenance so that his wife may enjoy the same comfort which she would have otherwise got in her matrimonial house. Thus, the social status of the parties, specifically of the husband, comes into play and that is one of the guiding factor for the determination of the maintenance amount. So long as wife is entitled to get maintenance amount, then it has to be ensured that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to face the situation of starvation. So long as wife is entitled to get maintenance amount, then it has to be ensured that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to face the situation of starvation. At the same time, if the husband is healthy and capable of earning, then he cannot get rid by saying that his income is less or his expenses are more. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in 2008 2 SCC 316 has held as under :- “6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. section 125 CrPC 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 )]. 10. Thus, it is clear that the husband cannot be permitted to plead that because of his financial constraints, he is unable to provide adequate maintenance which is required to maintain the same level of comfort and dignity which the wife would have got in her matrimonial house. 11. For determining the amount of maintenance, the financial as well as the social status of the husband is one of the guiding factors. 11. For determining the amount of maintenance, the financial as well as the social status of the husband is one of the guiding factors. Undisputedly, the respondent is the bus owner and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that he is an unskilled laborer. 12. looking to the factors like high rise status, basic needs of the applicant-wife, and sky high prices in the present scenario, it will be appropriate to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.4000/- per month to Rs.15000/- per month to applicant No.1 and from Rs.3000/- each to Rs.5000/- each to applicants No.2 and 3. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs.4000/- per month to Rs.15000/- per month to applicant No.1 and from Rs.3000/- each to Rs.5000/- each to applicants No.2 and 3 from the date of passing of the order by the Court below i.e., 16.9.2019 on which the Family Court had passed the order under challenge. The respondent shall pay the arrears of maintenance amount within two months from today. The revision accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed in part.