Pushank Jain vs Deepak Jaiswal

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to cail for the records, allow the revision of the applicant and quash/modify the order dated 13/07/2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 156/2022 between Smt. Deepak Jaiswal Versus Pushank Jain passed by the Learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, C.G., in the interest of justice.”

The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 22/04/2018 at Village Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G., as per Hindu rites and rituals, and certificate thereof is annexed as Annexure A-4. After marriage, the respondent resided in the matrimonial home at Village Geedam, District Dantewada, for only about 15 days, and thereafter left for her paternal home on the pretext of appearing in B.Ed. examination, taking along her gold and silver ornaments. Despite repeated efforts and persuasions by the applicant and his relatives, she refused to return unless the applicant lived separately in a rented house, and even after the applicant accepted her conditions in 2019 and deposited Rs.25,000/- in her account, she did not rejoin him and instead made false allegations, doubting his character. The applicant, therefore, was compelled to issue a legal notice and subsequently filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but the respondent failed to appear and the case was disposed of as not pressed on 25/03/2022. Instead of resuming cohabitation, the respondent filed M.Cr.C. No.156/2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein the Family Court, Balodabazar, vide order dated 13/07/2023, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month (Annexure A-1). Meanwhile, as the respondent had deserted the applicant for over three years without sufficient cause, the applicant filed a petition under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed ex-parte by the learned Court vide judgment dated 03/04/2024 (Annexure A-2), dissolving the marriage on the ground of desertion. It is further submitted that the applicant has suffered 75% permanent disability due to head injury and is incapable of earning (Annexure A-3), whereas the respondent is well qualified and employed as a teacher in Bharat Public Higher Secondary School, Simga, District Balodabazar, earning sufficient income of her own (Annexure A-5). Hence, the respondent, who voluntarily deserted the applicant without sufficient reason and has independent income, is not legally entitled to claim any maintenance, and the applicant being physically disabled and without any source of income is unable to pay the awarded amount. The present revision is, therefore, filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13/07/2023.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13/07/2023 passed by the learned Family Court suffers from grave perversity and illegality inasmuch as the Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had voluntarily deserted the applicant without any sufficient cause immediately after marriage, despite repeated efforts and compromises made by him to resume cohabitation. The learned Court overlooked the fact that the applicant is 75% permanently disabled, has completely lost his earning capacity, and is totally incapable of maintaining himself, whereas the respondent is well-qualified, employed as a teacher, and earning sufficient income of her own, thereby disentitling her from claiming maintenance. The allegations of cruelty and dowry demand raised by the respondent are false, unsupported by evidence, and marred by material contradictions and omissions. The learned Court, by taking a hyper-technical approach, wrongly saddled the physically disabled and unemployed applicant with a liability of Rs.2,500/- per month, despite clear legal position that a wife, who without sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband and has independent means of livelihood, is not entitled to any maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record and deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar(C.G.).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order dated 13/07/2023 directing the applicant to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, as the same is in consonance with the settled principles of law that a husband, irrespective of his physical disability or limited means, is legally bound to maintain his wife. The fact that the marriage was solemnized on 22/04/2018 and that the respondent resided in the matrimonial home only for about 15 days before returning to her paternal house does not absolve the applicant of his statutory duty. Even though the applicant has alleged desertion, the respondent has consistently maintained that she was compelled to live separately due to ill-treatment and false imputations on her character, which cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of non-appearance in the restitution proceedings. The Family Court has also rightly taken into account that the plea of disability by the applicant cannot operate as a shield to deny maintenance to his legally wedded wife, who, notwithstanding her qualifications, cannot be forced to maintain herself when the marital relationship subsists. The modest amount of Rs.2,500/- awarded is neither excessive nor arbitrary but is a just and reasonable sum, keeping in view the social and legal obligation of the husband to ensure the sustenance of his wife.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.