Smt. Archana Rai Vs Pradip Chaudhary

¶1

1 / 9

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Reserved on 12-09-2024 Pronounced on 11-12-2024

¶5

CRR No. 453 of 2023

¶6

Smt. Archana Rai W/o Pradip Chaudhary Aged About 39 Years R/o Plot No. 10/02, Ward No. 17, North Vasundhar Nagar, Bhilai 03, P.S. Purani Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

Pradip Chaudhary S/o A.N. Chaudhary Aged About 46 Years R/o Quarter No. 10 - D, Road - 26, Sector - 05, Bhilai Nagar P.S. 05, Kotwali, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For applicant. : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar and Mr. Gyan Prakash Dandekar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Singh, Advocate.

¶12

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶13

C A V Order

¶14

This applicant/wife has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court being aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2021 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 296 of 2017 (CIS No. 1194 of 2017) to the extent that the maintenance amount has not been granted from the date of filing of the application and the maintenance amount awarded to her

¶15

2 / 9

¶16

is on the lower side which has been granted to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 18-2-2017 as per Hindu rituals at Vsaundhara Nagar, Bhiliai-03, District Durg. It is the case of the applicant wife that soon after marriage, family members of the respondent/husband started torturing her for giving less dowry stating that respondent is working in Bhilai Steel Plant and he is high paid employee, therefore, if the marriage of the respondent/husband is solemnized with another girl, he would have been given good amount of dowry. It is also case of the applicant/wife that the respondent is suffering from disease Menengitis, he is insane and also used to tease and assault the applicant. Subsequently, it was reveled to her that the respondent is taking treatment from Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai and used to take medicine and in absence of medicine, the gravity of the disease regarding unsoundness of mind increases, as such he started behaving like mad. It is also case of the applicant/wife that the respondent is working as Senior Technician in Bhilai Steel Plant and is getting salary of Rs.90,000/- per month, therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance of Rs 40,000/- per month.

¶18

The respondent/husband has filed his return denying the allegations made in the application mainly contending that the applicant/wife is working in the scooter showrooms, therefore, she is getting good amount of salary and she has no financial burden, whereas the respondent has to look after his mother and sister and also used to make expenditure for medical. Thus, he prayed for rejection of the

¶19

3 / 9

¶20

application. It is also case of the respondent that the respondent and his family members have insisted the applicant/wife and her family members not to perform marriage with the respondent because of ill-health of the respondent, but on persuasion made by the applicant/wife and her family members, they have accepted the proposal and no untruly behavior has been done by him. It is also case of the respondent that no physical relation has been developed in the first night and she started keeping distance with him. She called some person in the house and took some gold and Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- from her matrimonial house and when the respondent entered into the room, it was found that she was not available in the house and when he made a telephone call to her, it was informed that she is in her parental house and she is not intending to live with the respondent/husband. It is also case of the respondent that the applicant/wife without any rhyme and reason left the matrimonial house, she is also earning good income from doing private job and getting handsome salary and she is capable to maintain herself, as such he prayed for rejection of the application.

¶21

The applicant/wife to substantiate her claim has examined herself by way of an affidavit as required under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC wherein she has reiterated the stand which she has taken in the application and exhibited the marriage card (Ex.P/1), complaint to Superintendent of Police, Durg (Ex.P/2), medical book issued by the applicant ( Ex.P/3 & P/4), pay slip of respondent/husband (Ex.P/5). The respondent/husband has examined himself as DW/1and has reiterated the stand which he has taken in the written statement.

¶22

4 / 9

¶23

Learned Family Court after hearing the parties and also considering the evidence on record has partly allowed the application and has granted maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of order passed by the learned Family Court i.e., on 30-112021. Being aggrieved with the quantum of maintenance amount and also non-grant of maintenance amount from the date of filing of the application, the applicant/wife has preferred the present criminal revision for enhancing the maintenance amount from the date of filing of the application.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant/wife would submit that the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court is on the lower side as the respondent/husband is working as Senior Technician in Bhilai Steel Plant, Durg and getting salary of Rs.90,000/- per month, therefore, maintenance amount should have been enhanced from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.40,000/- per month to the applicant/wife and it should be granted from the date of filing of the application ie., 31-10-2017 and not from date of order as has been done in this case. To substantiate his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel, reported in 2024 SCC Online 1724, Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another, reported in 1970(3) SCC 129 and judgment of this Court in case of Sachirani Thakur vs. Pradeep Thakur, reported in 2024 SCC Online Chh. 8014.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court as per her stay period of applicant in the matrimonial house is just

¶26

5 / 9

¶27

proportionate and looking to the living standard of applicant, as such no material irregularity or illegality has been committed by the learned Family Court warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court and would pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Family Court.

¶29

From the above factual matrix as projected by the parties, the point requires to be determined by this Court is whether grant of maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- per month is just and proportionate and whether the learned Family Court was justified in granting maintenance amount from the date of order i.e., 30-112021 in place of from date of filing of the application ie. 31-10-2017.

¶30

To appreciate the point emerged for determination this Court is referring Section 125 of Cr.P.C which is reproduced as under:

¶31

“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1)If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -(a)his wife, unable to maintain herself, or(b)his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or(c)his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or(d)his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate [* * *] [The words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" omitted by Act 50 of 2001, w.e.f. 24.9.2001.] , as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding

¶32

6 / 9

¶33

regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] [Inserted by Act 50 of 2001, Section 2 (w.e.f. 249-2001).] Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter, - (a)"minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority,(b)"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married”.

¶34

From the pleadings and material on record, it is quite vivid that the

¶35

marriage of the applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 18-2-2017 and she remained in her matrimonial house for 20 days as pleaded in the application by the applicant wife and no children is there from their wedlock, therefore, this Court has to consider whether grant of maintenance is proportionate to the tenure of matrimonial life between the applicant and respondent which is one of the consideration for grant of maintenance. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in para 86 as under.

¶36

“86. In a marriage of long duration, where parties have endured the relationship for several years, it would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. On termination of the relationship, if the wife is educated and professionally qualified, but had to give up her employment opportunities to look after the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would be required to be given due importance. This is of particular relevance in contemporary society, given the highly competitive industry standards, the separated wife would be required to undergo fresh training to acquire marketable skills and re-train herself to secure a job in the paid workforce to rehabilitate herself. With advancement of

¶37

7 / 9

¶38

age, it would be difficult for a dependant wife to get an easy entry into the work-force after a break of several years”.

¶39

From the above stated relevant factors enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if facts of the case are seen, the applicant/wife remained for 20 days in matrimonial house and she has filed an application on 31-10-2017 for grant of maintenance amount. Thus, tenure of her matrimonial life is very short, therefore, considering this aspect of the matter and also considering the fact that from the wedlock of the applicant and respondent, no child was born, learned Family Court has not committed any illegality in granting maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- per month to the applicant/wife. As such, the revision so far as challenging the order regarding enhancement of amount of maintenance deserves to be dismissed.

¶40

Now the other issue as determined by this Court with regard to grant of maintenance from the date of filing of application or the date of order, the law has been well settled that even though judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of filing of the application or from the date of order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., it is appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in the case filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the count that the applicant will remain wife of respondent, for the justifiable reason she was compelled to live separately, as such she is entitled to get maintenance from the date of filing of the application as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 109 to 113 as under.

¶41

“109. The judgments herein-above reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. 8 9 Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance

¶42

8 / 9

¶43

either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.

¶44

In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v. Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak MANU/SC/3353/2008 : 2008 9 SCC 632, this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena MANU/SC/0605/2014 : 2015 6 SCC 353, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application.

¶45

The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court concerned.

¶46

In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse MANU/SC/1084/2013 : (2014) 1 SCC 188, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held: 13.3. ...purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized Sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the Rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a

¶47

9 / 9

¶48

particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.

¶49

It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant”

¶50

Considering the evidence, material on record and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that maintenance of Rs.6000/- granted by the learned Family Court to the applicant/wife cannot be said to be on the lower side, but it should be granted from the date of filing of the application. Thus, the learned Family Court has committed illegality in not granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

¶51

Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed by directing the respondent/husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the applicant/wife from 31-10-2017 i.e., from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance and the prayer of the wife for grant of enhanced maintenance deserves to be rejected, accordingly it is rejected.

¶52

RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

¶53

Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2024.12.11 18:37:00 +0530

¶54

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶57

Raju

Smt. Archana Rai v. Pradip Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Archana Rai v. Pradip Chaudhary

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

Baliram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Barmaram Korram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Yogewsh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasma Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oxford Trade Centre

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs Anil Yadav