AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur in M.J.C. No.156/2012 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the applicant/wife.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1962. They are living separately from the year 1995.
The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the respondent on the grounds that the respondent has sufficient means to pay the maintenance. But the respondent willfully refused and neglected her, therefore, the applicant was residing separately from the respondent. She is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is earning Rs.14,729/- per month as pension. In January, 1995 the parties came to an arrangement relating to the maintenance of the applicant till they live separately, that 50% of the pension amount would be paid to the applicant/wife. Till December, 2008 as per condition of the aforesaid settlement, the respondent/husband regularly paid the maintenance to the applicant. Thereafter, he refused to pay such amount, hence, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.10,249/- per month.
The respondent denied the allegations. He pleaded that the applicant is capable of maintaining herself. She has movable or immovable properties at Jabalpur. The respondent regularly paid the maintenance amount upto three years. Even then, the applicant failed to perform her duties as wife. The respondent is an old person and suffering from health problems. He is also burdened to maintain her old mother, who is 90 years old and therefore, he is not able to pay to the applicant any maintenance allowance.
The learned trial Court found that the applicant was living separately from her husband by her own will without any proper or sufficient reason. It is not proved that the respondent has willfully neglected the applicant. It is also not proved that the applicant is not able to maintain herself. She has failed to prove that she was living in compelling circumstances for the rigid conduct of respondent. Therefore, application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the Family Court has failed to see that the respondent admitted his liability. He has provided the maintenance allowance to the applicant till the year 2008 thereafter her. The applicant is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance. She has prayed to set aside the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Family Court Jabalpur and requested for proper
maintenance from the respondent.
This appeal is pending since year 2012 and learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared since long. However, the matter is considered on the basis of material available on record and reply filed by the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
In case of "Rohtash Singh Vs. Smt. Ramendri and others, AIR 2000 SC 952 " Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"Object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which owes to society in respect of his wife. So that, she is not left beggared and destituted on the scrapheap of the society."
The applicant in her deposition has stated that, after solemnizing the marriage in the year 1962, the respondent always quarreled with her and he was residing separately or sent her to parental house. Their relationships were always disputed. After narrating those facts, no further suggestion has been given by learned counsel for the respondent to the applicant regarding misbehaviour towards her husband. Therefore, it is not reliable that after the year 1969, behaviour of the applicant was not good towards the respondent. Therefore, he went to his parents'' house at Varansi and joined service. The respondent has also stated that again from the year 1974-84, the applicant and respondent were living together but thereafter, in the year 1995, he shifted to Indore from Jabalpur. As per the respondent, the applicant separated him therefore, he shifted to Indore.
In reply, the respondent has submitted that upto May 2009, he regularly paid Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance to the applicant. Learned trial Court has also held that the respondent by demand draft paid maintenance to the applicant till April, 2009. In his testimony, the respondent deposed that the applicant always quarreled with him for shortage of money. He has also admitted that the applicant has no independent source of income. Neither she has any job nor she is doing any business. In para-8, he has also admitted that he disclosed his annual income Rs.1,25,400/- as per Ex.D/44.
The statement of the applicant and the respondent shows that there was no cordial relationship between them. The respondent himself left the applicant''s house and shifted to Indore. In para 3 of his crossexamination, he has admitted that after separation, he did not write any letter to his wife/applicant nor he tried to live jointly. He retired in January, 1994. In para 4, he has admitted that he lived at Indore alone. In para 7, he has admitted that he filed a divorce petition against the applicant. It needs specific mention here that the applicant has not made any allegation against the respondent that, his behaviour was cruel and he used to beat the applicant or the respondent had illicit relationship with any woman or he has performed second marriage.
In the light of above circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant was living separately without any just or proper reasons. The applicant was deserted by her husband because their relationship was not cordial due to shortage of money. The respondent himself not wished to live with his wife. The conduct of the respondent shows that from June 2009, he neglected and refused to maintain his wife/applicant. Even though, the applicant has no independent source of income. She was living alone at Jabalpur. The children of the applicant and the respondent were married and settled at another place. It may be possible that the applicant is residing in her own flat. If she had no independent source of income, it is the duty of the respondent to maintain her as legally wedded wife. "In case of "Mamobai Vs. Sukhdeo, 1990 Cri.L.J. 646 (MP)", it was held as under:-
"In order to prove that the husband refused and neglected to maintain his wife, wife is not required to prove elaborate evidence. It is sufficient to establish the circumstances from which prima facie, case of her husband refusing and neglecting to maintain her can be established. Even though, the husband himself was in old age or in old condition, his entering into the marriage by itself is an indication that he has undertaken to maintain his wife. It is his first responsibility to maintain his wife and it has nothing to do with his capacity, physical disability and even though it is proved that the husband has no apparent source or means, he can be made liable to pay maintenance to his wife, who is unable to maintain herself and whom the husband has refused and neglected to maintain as held in the case of "Sudha Vs. Raj Kumar, 1997 Cri.L.J. 3140 (Madras)".
The respondent knows that the applicant is about 68-70 years old and she is not working. On the other hand, the respondent is a retd. Central Government Employee and he received a fair amount as pension. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that he required Rs.15,000/- per month for his expenses. As per the Income Tax Return of the respondent (Ex.D/44), his annual income is shown as Rs.1,25,400/-. In para 9 of his cross-examination, he did not deny that his pension was increased due to dearness allowances @ 6%. He deposed that in April, 2011 his pension has become Rs.18,365/-, is not in his knowledge. Ex.D/43 is the statement of the year 2008-09, which shows that his pension has increased from Rs.11,193/- to Rs.14,034/-, from the year April 2008 to 28.2.2009. His deposition has been recorded in the year 2011. Therefore, it may be presumed that in the year 2011, he received a increased pension of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. He also admitted that he has not filed any pension statement after the year 2009.
In these circumstances, it is proved that he is capable to maintain his wife/applicant. He has no further liability except to maintain himself. In para 4 of his cross-examination, he explained that except the applicant, none else is dependent on his earning or his pension.
On the above grounds, the findings of learned trial Court is not found just and proper and not in accordance with the evidence of the parties. Everyone knows that compared to a young person, it is difficult for an old person to maintain themselves. With Rs.3,000/- per month, an old person requires medicines and regular health check up etc. Now-a-days, price of essential commodities is increasing day by day. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to receive a reasonable amount for her maintenance from the respondent. This Court is in agreement with the findings of learned trial Court that, the applicant has failed to prove that there was a settlement between the parties according to which, the respondent agreed to pay 50% of his pension to the applicant, which was approximately Rs.10,249/- per month on the date of settlement. The applicant also failed to prove that the respondent has any occasion paid such amount for her maintenance.
The applicant has a residence for her shelter and she may be working to some how fill her stomach and fulfill for her daily requirements, which cannot be deemed to be capable of earnings in the age of 70 years or above. The applicant is unable to do any work. The husband/respondent has sufficient means to pay the maintenance but he willfully refused and neglected the applicant/wife. The applicant/wife is unable to maintain herself. For that reason, the claim of the applicant cannot be dismissed.
In case of "Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and others, (2015) SCC 35 3, it is held as under:-
"Duty of husband towards wife to provide proper maintenance, continues until when the maintenance of wife for her sustenance. "Sustenance" does not mean animal existence but signifies leading life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. Husband has bounden duty to enable wife to live life with dignity according to their social status and strata."
Keeping in view the age of parties, necessity of the applicant and earnings of the respondent, the expenses for daily needs and medicines and further keeping in mind the status of respondent, I am of the view that Rs.8,000/- per month is just and proper amount for maintenance of the applicant. The respondent is capable to pay such amount.
In view of the aforesaid, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.9.2012 is set aside. It is directed that the respondent would pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance amount from the date of order of the Family Court i.e. 11.9.2012.