AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)
By means of the Criminal Revision No. 503 of 2025, filed under Sections 438/442 of the B.N.S.S., the revisionist has assailed the judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court/District Judge, Champawat in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28 of 2024, titled as “Smt. Sunaina and Another vs. Manoj Rajpal”, whereby the learned Family Court/District Judge, Champawat, partly allowed the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no. 2 and passed an order granting maintenance of Rs.3,500/- in favour of respondent no. 2 and Rs.2,000/- in favour of the son of the revisionist and respondent no. 2, payable from the date of the order, i.e., 02.06.2025.
By means of the Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2025, filed under Section 438 of the B.N.S.S. read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the revisionists have assailed the judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Champawat, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28 of 2024, titled as “Smt. Sunaina and Another vs. Manoj Rajpal”, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the learned Family Judge, while deciding the case, directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,500/- per month, i.e., Rs.3,500/- to revisionist no. 1 and Rs.2,000/- to revisionist no. 2. Therefore, the revisionists pray that the maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, District Champawat, be enhanced.
Since both the revisions emanate from the same judgment and order, they are being heard and decided together.
The facts of Criminal Revision No. 503 of 2025 are being narrated for the adjudication of the revisions, which are as follows:
Respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat. Thereafter, both parties, i.e., the revisionist and respondent no. 2, submitted their affidavits of assets and liabilities for the last three consecutive years.
Thereafter, these proceedings were transferred to the Court of the Family Court, District Champawat, and were finally adjudicated by the impugned order, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court/District Judge, Champawat, was pleased to allow the maintenance application vide judgment and order dated 02.06.2025, thereby granting a total amount of Rs.5500/- as maintenance to the wife and the minor son, the breakup being Rs.3,500/- for respondent no. 2/wife and Rs.2,000/- for the son.
Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, District Champawat, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the respondent wife did not disclose her income. She had worked at Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical Institute during the period 2021–2022 for an amount of Rs.500/- per lecture. Thereafter, from 30.04.2024 to 27.03.2025, the respondent wife worked at Bethany Jeevan Dhara Centre, Tanakpur, District Champawat.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the respondent wife had willingly left the company of the revisionist /husband and, on this premise, was not entitled to any maintenance. Despite this, the learned Judge, Family Court, was pleased to grant maintenance to the respondent wife.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent wife would submit that the revisionist husband used to commit maar-peet with her, on account of which a case was filed against him under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent wife, therefore, had valid reasons not to reside with the revisionist husband.
Furthermore, the work alleged to have been undertaken by the respondent wife at Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical Institute was temporary in nature and was undertaken prior to her marriage. Her work at Bethany Jeevan Dhara Centre was more in the nature of voluntary work and was not a permanent assignment.
Learned counsel for the respondent wife would further submit that the admitted income of the husband is Rs.20,600/- per month and that the learned Judge, Family Court, has granted the maintenance amount accordingly. He would thus submit that the learned Judge, Family Court, has not committed any illegality warranting interference.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is evident from the impugned judgment and order that the learned Judge, Family Court, has framed certain points for determination.
On Issue No. 1, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the revisionist husband is a person of sufficient means.
On Issue No. 2, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent wife is unable to maintain herself and the minor child.
On Issue No. 3, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the revisionist/husband has not taken care of the respondent wife and the minor child.
On Issue No. 4, the learned Judge, Family Court, came to the conclusion that the respondent wife had sufficient reason to live separately. On the issue of the amount of maintenance, the learned Judge, Family Court, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Others”, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 7, and relied upon paragraph 8 thereof, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“8.The wife has no fixed abode of residence. She says she is living in a Gurdwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand the husband has sufficient income and a house to himself. The wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs 5000 per month payable by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife.”
The learned Judge, Family Court, has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, and has referred to paragraph 81 thereof, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“81.A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.”
On the basis of the same, the learned Judge, Family Court, came to the conclusion that, since the revisionist husband had admitted his monthly income to be Rs.20,000/-, it would be proper to grant maintenance of Rs.5,500/- to the respondent wife and the minor child, comprising Rs.3,500/- for the respondent wife and Rs.2,000/- for the son.
The submission made on behalf of the revisionist that the respondent wife did not disclose her income does not find favour with this Court, inasmuch as learned counsel for the respondent wife has submitted that she had a temporary job, that too before her marriage.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist husband that the wife had willingly left the company of her husband also does not find favour with this Court, inasmuch as the learned Judge, Family Court, has returned a finding that, on account of the case under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of demands for dowry, harassment and maar-peet, the respondent wife has been living separately from the revisionist husband. Therefore, this ground does not appeal to this Court.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, it is evident that the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 is a well-considered order. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the pleadings of both parties, the evidence led by them and the issues framed for determination. It has also relied upon the relevant judgments in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra) and Rajnesh (supra) and has awarded a reasonable amount as maintenance to the respondents.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court/District Judge, Champawat. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court/District Judge, Champawat, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 28 of 2024 is hereby affirmed.
The Criminal Revision No. 503 of 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Since this Court, while deciding the aforesaid revision, has come to the conclusion that the amount of maintenance granted to wife & minor child vide the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2025 is reasonable, there is no scope for any enhancement. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2025 filed by the respondent wife seeking enhancement of maintenance also lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2025 is also dismissed accordingly.