Anita Pandey Vs Ram Kumar Pandey

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 358 of 2023

¶5

1 - Anita Pandey W/o Shri Ramkumar Pandey Aged About 40 Years at Raja Talab, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - Tina Pandey D/o Shri Ramkumar Pandey Aged About 6 Years Through Next Kin Mother Anita Pandey, At Raja Talab, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

----applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Ram Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Pandey Aged About 45 Years at Holi Road, Baldev Mohalla-Holiwala, P. S. Baldev, Mathura, District Mathura U. P.

¶10

		---- Respondent
For Applicant	:	Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate
For Respondent	:	Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶12

Order on board

¶13

18.06.2024.

¶14

The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 17/01/2023 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 111/2018 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance amount is partly allowed and Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded to the Applicant No. 2 as the monthly maintenance amount from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 22/02/2018. Against the awarding of less amount towards maintenance, the applicants have filed the instant criminal revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated

¶15

2

¶16

17/01/2023 and claimed enhancement of monthly maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between the respondent and applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 13/12/2005. Out of their wedlock their daughter (applicant No. 2) born on 31/08/2008. After some time of marriage, the differences came into existence between the respondent and applicant No. 1 and the respondent started harassing the applicant No. 1 (wife) on various reasons including demand of dowry. The respondent used to beat the applicant No. 1 also by which the applicant No. 1 was suffered miscarriage. When she conceived pregnancy in second time the respondent left the applicant No. 1 in her parents’ house where the applicant No. 2 has born on 31/08/2008, even after her birth, the respondent has not come even to seek his daughter and refused to take responsibility of the applicants. When the applicants were in process of lodging the report to the police, the respondent consented to provide maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the applicant No. 1 but he was not paying the said amount regularly.

¶18

The applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide MJC No. 33/2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur and also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance amount before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. In the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent had given his consent that he is ready to give maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per

¶19

3

¶20

month and in view thereof the applicant No. 1 get her application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. withdrawn. Keeping under the misconception that the respondent would provide them the monthly maintenance amount regularly, they got closed both the cases as per the agreement between the parties but the respondent is not obeying the terms of the agreement and he was not paying the maintenance regularly. Since, the respondent was not paying the monthly maintenance amount regularly, the applicants have filed the application again under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for monthly maintenance amount in which they pleaded that the applicant No. 1 is a house maker having no source of income, the respondent is having the business of stationary supply and earning Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. He is having 50 Acres of land at Baldev (UP) and 20 Acre of Land at Kharora, Dist- Raipur from which he is earning Rs. 9-10 Lakhs per year. Apart from that he is having 15 Acres of land at Village Sarora where he cultivating the vegetables and earning the sufficient amount. Despite that he is not maintaining his wife and daughter and neglecting her. In view of the present cost of living as also the status of the parties, the applicants are required 20,000/- rupees per month for which the respondent is liable to pay to the applicants.

¶21

The respondent in reply to the application has denied the contents of the application and has submitted that the applicant No. 1 herself has left his house on her own will and without any sufficient reason. He also submitted that with the consent of the parties, Rs. 4000/- per month amount was determined which was to pay by the respondent to his wife and he is continued in

¶22

4

¶23

paying the monthly maintenance amount. There is no denial with the fact that the applicant no. 1 is his wife and applicant No. 2 is his daughter, even there is no specific denial to the allegation leveled against the respondent by the applicant No. 1 in her application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

The learned Family Court has framed two issues and proceeded for recording of the evidence of the parties. The applicants have examined the witness AW-1 Anita Pandey (applicant No. 1 herself) and the respondent has examined himself as NAW-1.

¶25

After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence laid by the parties and hearing them, the learned Family Court has passed the order on 17/01/2023, partly allowed the application of the applicants and have awarded the total Rs. 4500/- per month to the applicants as monthly maintenance payable from the date of application i.e. 22/02/2018 which is under challenge in the present revision.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that looking to the present cost of living as also the need of daily expenses, clothings, medicines and other requirement of the school going daughter who is presently aged about 16 years, the amount of Rs. 4500/- is very meager amount which is liable to be enhanced suitably. He would further submits that the respondent-husband is having sufficient means of his income, the respondent has admitted in his evidence that he is having 15 Acres of agricultural land at Village Paraswani and 6-7 Bigha land at Uttar Pradesh. He further admitted that in the year 2013 there was a compromise between the parties with respect to the

¶27

5

¶28

monthly maintenance amount and the respondent was ready to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the applicants as monthly maintenance. The respondent husband is having sufficient means to pay the monthly maintenance amount and is well settled in business. The applicant No. 1 is a house maker having no source of income and the applicant No. 2 is a school going daughter. Considering the need of the applicants and also the financial status of the respondent, the amount of maintenance suitably enhanced by modifying the impugned order.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes and submitted that the order passed by the learned family Court is absolutely justified. The learned family Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, requirement of daily need, as also the status of the parties, passed the order granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month to the applicants which needs no interference.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the revision petition.

¶31

10.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1314 has held in Para 9 & 10 of its judgment.

¶32

“9 . At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. MANU/SC/0605/2014: (2015) 6 SCC 353 This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as

¶33

6

¶34

under:

¶35

In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [MANU/SC/0420/1987 (1987) 1 SCC 624: 1987 SCC (Cri.) 237] the Court opined that: (SCC p. 631, para 16)

¶36

Proceedings Under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.

¶37

A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) V Veeraswamy (K.) [ MANU/SC/0719/1991: (1991) 2 SCC 375: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose Under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, para 3)

¶38

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.

¶39

A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1159/1996: (1996) 4 SCC 479: 1996 SCC (Cri.) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that: (SCC p. 489, para 15)

¶40

15.... 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.

¶41

In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [ MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 356), reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 6)

¶42

6.... Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a

¶43

7

¶44

measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [MANU/SC/0067/1978: (1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 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 [ MANU/SC/0193/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri.) 787).

¶45

Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [ MANU/SC/0248/2013: (2014) 14 SCC 452: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 407: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children.

¶46

10 . This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions Under Section 125 of the Code. Such an Impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. 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. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”

¶47

11.In the matter of Kalyan Dey Choudhary Vs. Reeta dey reported in

¶48

2017 14 SCC 2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony

¶49

8

¶50

awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.

¶51

It is not the case of the respondent that the applicant No. 1 is having any source of her income and there is nothing in his reply as well as oral evidence that she is earning member of family or she has enough money to maintain herself.

¶52

From the evidence of the parties, it appears that the applicants have produced the revenue records of the land of the respondent and the respondent in his evidence has admitted in Para 13 & 14 of his deposition that he was having 15 Acre of agricultural land at Village Paraswani and 6-7 Bigha land at Uttar Pradesh.

¶53

From the over all pleadings and evidence produced by the parties, document produced by the parties, although, the applicants could not file any documentary evidence with respect to the business or income of the respondent, but from the evidence available in the record as also from the affidavit submitted by the respondent before the learned trial Court in compliance of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324, “Rajnesh Vs. Neha” in which the respondent disclosed that he engaged in stationary supply business, it can be inferred that he is a persons and having sufficient means of his income.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid as also in view of the aforesaid discussions and also in view of the factual and legal aspects, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 17/01/2023 with respect to the quantum of maintenance amount to the applicants is liable to be modified by enhancing the same and thus, the prayer for enhancement of the maintenance amount is partly allowed and the

¶55

9

¶56

applicant No. 1 is held entitled for Rs. 7,000/- per month and the applicant No. 2 is entitled for Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance amount. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra), the applicants are entitled for enhanced amount of maintenance from the date of filing of their application i.e. from 21/02/2018. The respondent is liable to pay the amount of maintenance as granted by this Court by this judgment.

¶57

The parties are at liberty to claim modification/ enhancement/ reduction/ setting aside of the maintenance order if situation arises in change of circumstances.

¶58

The present criminal revision is allowed in part in terms of the above mentioned conditions.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶61

Sagrika

Anita Pandey v. Ram Kumar Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Pandey v. Ram Kumar Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanju @ Vikesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madavi Malla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Poonam Sharma Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Akash Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh