Anguri & Others vs Laxman Singh

Present revision petition is preferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Datia whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for maintenance has been rejected.

Precisely stated, facts of the case are that, petitioner No.1 Anguri got married to respondent Laxman Singh twenty years back and they were blessed with three children, Amar Singh petitioner No.2, Okesh Singh petitioner No.3 and Ku. Damni petitioner No.4. Children are living with petitioner No.1. Because of misbehaviour and ill-treatment of the respondent with petitioner No.1 and consumption of liquor made their relationship strained and bitter. As per their allegations, Respondent used to consume liquor with other persons in his house and used to mistreat his wife in front of them. Even once, he tried to kill petitioner No.1 while administering poison in her food items and later on, he left petitioner No.1 at Kailaras. She has no means to survive whereas, respondent has sufficient means by way of shop, land, business etc and earning around Rs.70,000/- per month. He is enjoying live in relationship with other females also. Therefore, petitioner No.1 sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for herself and for her children. With these allegations, petitioners preferred petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Respondent opposed the prayer by filing reply in the said application. He submitted that respondent never consumed liquor and not harassed petitioner No.1 for dowry demand. His sons Amar Singh and Okesh Singh are aged 20 years and 18 years respectively and daughter Ku. Damni is aged 16 years. He purchased a plot at village Goraghat in which, petitioner No.1 and her children are living, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief of maintenance. The trial court after considering the evidence and fact situation, declined to interfere and did not award any maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

It is the submission of counsel for the petitioners that the family Court erred in passing impugned order rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners for maintenance as petitioner No.1 Anguri has no means to maintain herself and her children and for want of funds, she finds it extremely difficult to meet both the ends. Conduct of respondent is very bad with petitioner No.1 and children. He used to beat petitioner No.1 Anguri very often and now, he has kept second wife with him and therefore, he kept petitioners out from his house. Therefore, the petitioners cannot survive without maintenance amount.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that because of bad habits and adulterous life led by petitioner No.1, respondent left her. She is in the habit of leading adulterous life with one Kalla and later on, with elder brother of respondent. It is further submitted that she has sufficient means to maintain because, one house at Dabra has been given by respondent to her by registering in her name and she is earning rent from there. Besides that, she herself earns and her sons also earn sufficiently to maintain themselves. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

From perusal of the fact situation and record, it appears that after registration of case and evidence led by petitioner No.1 on dated 7.6.2016, compromise took place between the parties on 13th December, 2016 (in another proceeding) whereby, petitioner No.1 Anguri and respondent both deposed on oath before the court to live together and therefore, they made statements that they are going to live together. Said statement Ex.D/4 was given before I Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh wherein, in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the parties have reached to settlement but later stage, it was informed by petitioner No.1 Anguri that she had never consented for settlement and under the garb of proceedings, she was persuaded by the respondent to sign over the settlement but she never settled the matter. Therefore, the settlement before I Additional District Judge Sabalgarh pertaining to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was never given effect to. It is further inferred from the submissions that both have taken divorce and they are living  separately.

So far as maintenance to petitioner No.1 and her children are concerned, petitioner No.1 is earning through land and through her work and her son Amar Singh appears to be major, therefore, both these persons are not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent. Even otherwise, since, petitioner No.1/wife is living separately on her own volition (and when she appears to have taken divorce) therefore, she is not entitled for any relief in the given fact situation.

So far as other petitioners i.e. petitioner No.3 Okesh Singh and petitioner No.4 Ku.Damni are concerned, they appear to be minors and therefore, they are entitled for maintenance. Petitioner No.3 Okesh Singh and petitioner No.4 Damni would be entitled for receiving maintenance till they attain the age of majority i.e. 18 years. However, looking to the fact situation, an amount of Rs.1500/- per month each, (totalling Rs.3000/- per month), would be sufficient. The said amount is reasonable amount looking to the fact situation and income of respondent. He himself appears to be a person of modest background therefore, cannot be saddled with the liability for more than this amount. The impugned order dated 20th January, 2018 is modified to this extent.

Resultantly, this revision petition stands disposed of as indicated herein above.