Hemant Kumar Chakradhar vs Vinita Chakradhar

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 1/7/2015 passed by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Ashoknagar in M.Cr.C. No.182/2015, by which the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been

allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month by way of maintenance from the date of application.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

on the allegations that she got married to the applicant on 5/5/2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Immediately after the marriage, the applicant and

his family members started passing taunts and harassing her mentally on the allegation that less dowry has been given and the applicant would have

got more dowry in case had he been married to somebody else. The applicant and his family members were demanding either four wheeler or

Rs.5,00,000/-. The father of the respondent is a poor person and is not in a position to fulfill their demand. The applicant and his family members

used to say that in other marriages the grooms have got a car in dowry and even the sons of their relatives have got a car in dowry. Since her father

was a poor person, therefore, she was somehow managing the physical and mental harassment at the hands of the applicant and his family

members under the impression and belief that one day the situation would improve, but the applicant and his family members used to beat her and

they were also not providing food to her and she was being treated as a maid/servant. The applicant was also not treating the respondent as his

wife and was insisting that only after she brings a car, then he would treat her like his wife. About six months prior to filing of the application the

respondent was turned out of her matrimonial house with a specific direction that unless and until she brings a car, she should treat that the relations

have already come to an end. The respondent and her father tried to pursue the applicant and his family members on number of occasions, but they

did not give up their demand. In the month of May, 2012 she was given a warning that either she should bring a car otherwise the applicant would

remarry. Accordingly, a complaint was made to the police officers. Thus, it was alleged that the applicant is not providing the maintenance to the

respondent and she is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, a prayer was made for grant of maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per

month.

The application was opposed by the applicant. The allegations of demand of dowry were denied. The allegation of turning her out of matrimonial

house was also denied. The allegation that the applicant was not treating the respondent as his wife was also denied. In additional statement, it was

alleged that in fact it is the respondent whose behaviour with the applicant and his family members was not cordial and she always abuses them and

always passes taunts against the applicant and his family members. She is residing in her parents'' house without any reasonable reason.

The respondent in support of her application examined herself and her father Babulal. The applicant examined himself and his father Gangaram

Chakradhar in support of his defence. The trial court by order dated 1/7/2015 allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay

Rs.5,000/-, by way of maintenance to the respondent, from the date of the application.

Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is the respondent who herself is residing

separately without any reasonable reason and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Even otherwise, in absence of any specific finding with

regard to the income of the applicant the trial court has granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is excessive. This Court

by interim order dated 7/8/2015 had directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month during the pendency of this application and the applicant

has regularly paid the said amount. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since there is no default on the part of the applicant,

therefore, the direction given by the trial court to pay the maintenance amount from the date of the application is erroneous.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent was maltreated, harassed and treated with cruelty by the

applicant and his family members and, therefore, the trial court did not commit any mistake in coming to the conclusion that she is residing

separately because of reasonable reason. The applicant is a financially strong person and, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the

trial court is proper.

The applicant in his evidence has accepted that on the complaint of the respondent a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act is pending. Although a suggestion was given to the father of the respondent that the applicant and his family members have been

acquitted in a criminal case registered for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, but it was further replied by her father-Babulal (PW-2) that the

State appeal is pending. The applicant in his evidence has admitted that he had never made any complaint with regard to the misbehaviour by the

respondent nor any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ever filed by him. Thus, it is clear that it is the applicant who was

not ready and willing to keep the respondent with him, otherwise he would have certainly taken certain steps under the law to bring her back. The

trial court has also given a finding that the respondent is entitled for maintenance, as she is not residing separately without any reasonable reason.

No perversity in the said order has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant. It is the well established principle of law that while exercising

the revisional jurisdiction, the findings of facts can be reversed only when the same are perverse and contrary to the record. Thus, it is held that the

respondent is entitled for maintenance amount.

So far as the question of quantum of maintenance is concerned, from the record it is clear that the respondent had alleged that the applicant is

having half bigha of land and a house containing 15 rooms and 2 rooms have already been let out by the applicant and he is earning Rs.15,000/-

per month by way of rent and he is also earning profit from his shop to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per month. However, no document has been filed

to show that the applicant is having any agricultural land or having a house of 15 rooms. However, it is the well established principle of law that

where the husband is an able-bodied person, then he cannot refuse to maintain his wife on the ground that he is not having sufficient income. As the

respondent has failed to point out the exact financial status of the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance

amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the trial court is on a higher side. This Court by order dated 7/8/2015 had directed the applicant to pay

maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month during the pendency of this revision. However, considering the price index, inflation, price

of the articles of daily need, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.3,000/- is on a lower side. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant

shall pay Rs.4,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the respondent.

So far as the question that from which date the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- would be payable is concerned, I have gone through the

order-sheets of the trial court. From the order-sheets, it does not appear that there was any delay on the part of the applicant. On some occasions

the respondent got the matter adjourned for examining her witnesses and on some occasions the matter was adjourned to explore the possibility of

compromise. On three occasions the matter was adjourned at the request of the applicant on the ground that his father is seriously ill. Even during

the pendency of the case before the trial court the applicant was making payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month.

Considering the order-sheets of the trial court, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the applicant was in any manner solely

responsible for the delay in disposal of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the application under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. was filed on 1/6/2013 and it was finally decided by order dated 1/7/2015, i.e. about 2 years, and during this period also the respondent

was getting the interim maintenance.

Accordingly, it is directed that the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be payable to the respondent from 1/7/2015, i.e. the date on which

the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was finally decided by the trial court.

With aforesaid modifications, the order dated 1/7/2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashoknagar in M.Cr.C. No.182/2015 is

hereby affirmed. The application succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above.