Anil Sharma vs Smt. Babli

The applicant/husband has preferred this revision on being aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2015 passed in M.J.C.No.243/2014 by Principal Judge, Family Court Bhind, whereby the application filed by the respondent-wife for fixation of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent- wife.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 6.7.2008 as per Hindu rituals and custom. However, certain dispute arose between the parties regarding which the allegation of the respondent is that, the applicant and his family members were persistently making demand of dowry and were ill-treating her. In the year 2014, the present respondent left the house of the applicant for the reason of demand of dowry and since then she is residing with her parents, a criminal case against the applicant and his family members was registered under Section 498-A of IPC.

The present respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that, she is unable to maintain herself as she does not have any source of income. She is depending on her parents. The parents of the respondent are only able to earn enough to meet their livelihood whereas the applicant has monthly income of around Rs.40000/- to Rs.50000/- per month from farming as well as from property dealing business. Accordingly, a prayer was made for a direction to the applicant to pay Rs.15000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. The application was partly allowed by the impugned order and court below has directed the applicant to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent.

Feeling aggrieved by fixation of maintenance amount the present revision application is preferred by the applicant-husband.

The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the court below has committed error by allowing the application under Section 125 of CrPC in favour of the respondent as the applicant does not have enough means to maintain himself. There is no documentary evidence available on record which shows that the applicant has agricultural land or is earning any amount from the agricultural operation. On the contrary, the respondent earns Rs.4000/- per month by stitching work, hence prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

I have considered the rival contention and perused the record of the court below.

The applicant has invited attention of the Court to the statement of respondent, wherein she has answered in affirmative the suggestions put forth by the applicant that, she has filed a case for maintenance to enable her to save herself from the divorce case filed by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant prayed that the contention of the respondent disentitles her from receiving the maintenance. In the context of this contention, I have examined the facts of this case. It is true that the respondent has filed an application for maintenance after filing of divorce petition as a counter- measure. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, this statement will not disentitle the respondent from receiving the maintenance amount. In fact, filing of divorce petition lays strength on the assertion that the respondent is not residing with her husband involuntarily as the applicant has filed the divorce petition. The paramount consideration of the application under Section 125 CrPC is, ability of the wife to maintain herself without assistance from her husband and that, whether she is residing separately from her matrimonial house voluntarily or involuntarily.

In this regard, respondent-wife stated in her examination-in-chief that she has no source of income, she is fully dependent on her father whereas her husband is having two houses in Bhind and sufficient agricultural land in village Mehgaon and he is earning Rs.40000/- to Rs.50000/- per month. Present applicant-husband in his cross-examination stated that he has two houses in Arya Nagar Ward No.6, Bhind but he has denied that he is earning Rs.40000/- to Rs.50000/- from the rent and property dealing work. Though lateron respondent-wife admitted in her cross-examination that the applicant is not having any agricultural land in his name but she has denied that the applicant is fully dependent on the income of his father. Applicant-husband affirmed that he has done BA, LLB.

Further, from the material on record, it does not appear that respondent has any source of income whereas no suggestion has been made in her cross- examination that she knows the stitching work and she is earning Rs.4000/- per month from the said work. The applicant is well educated person. He has admitted that he is having two houses in Bhind city, therefore, the reasoning of court below cannot be doubted.

In view of the discussion made herein above, no interference is called for in this revision and revision application being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.