Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 516 (CHH)

Gangadhar Chauhan S/o Ratiram Chouhan v. Santoshi Chauhan W/o Gangadhar Chauhan

2022-11-16

DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.11.2020 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 62/2019 by the family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali, whereby the family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- to the non-applicant No. 1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the non-applicant No. 2/minor daughter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is doing the labour work and the trial Court has also found in Para-18 of the impugned order that the petitioner is doing the labour work. Considering the income of the petitioner, the trial Court has fixed the maintenance amount. However, it is not disputed that the wife is living separately, as the wife has alleged that the petitioner has got remarried with another lady and is residing with her. He would further submit that in the social meeting, the wife has got divorce from the applicant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order annexed with the petition. 4. Indisputably, the learned family Court has fixed the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- towards the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for minor daughter, thus total Rs. 2,500/- which is less than Rs. 100/- per day. 5. It is well settled that the provisions of maintenance enacted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation and the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able bodied and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. 6. In the matter of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 , it has been held that the object of maintenance is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but 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. 7. In view of the aforesaid principle, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Consequently, the instant Revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.