Sanjay vs Pragati

Prem Narayan Singh, J

Heard and perused the record.

This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Indore in MJCR No.1494/2023, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the petitioner to pay of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent/wife as interim maintenance. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2 . Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.11.2014. The respondent alleged in the application that petitioner is an Ayurvedic Doctor by profession, however, he stayed at home and does not do any work to earn the livelihood. When the respondent tried to communicate the same to her in-laws they harassed her and ill-treated her. It is further alleged that after lapse of few years, when the respondent was unable to conceive the petitioner and his family members have harassed her mentally and tortured physically. Hence, she started living separately and filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and awarded interim maintenance Rs.5000/- per month. Hence being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has committed grave error of law in passing the impugned judgment. The petitioner is ready to keep the respondent with him and maintain them but the respondent did not come to the Court with clean hands. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that respondent is living separately without any valid reason. It is settled position of law that the proof of burden is first placed upon the wife to prove that the means of her husband are sufficient and she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, order of maintenance has wrongly been passed and deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court has wrongly awarded Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as interim maintenance which is on higher side, hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5 . From the bare perusal of the impugned order as well as material available on record, it is crystal clear that the learned Family Court has rightly observed that the husband is having sufficient means of source of income as he is an Ayurvedic Doctor by profession and having sufficient means of income. It is also apparent that the wife is not able t o maintain herself, therefore, the learned Family Court has not committed any error of law and facts while passing the impugned order and in awarding the interim maintenance in favour of the wife and the child. Further, as per the settled provisions of law, the wife is also entitled to maintain socio-economic status as per the financial status of her husband.

It is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to a financial status equivalent to that of the husband. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to live with her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83), it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”

At this juncture, the following excerpts of Rajnesh Vs.Neha and Ors.[(2021) 2 SCC 324] is reproduced below :-

" T he 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.

T h e 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 meager 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."

In view of the aforesaid analysis and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the interim maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court appears to be just and proper. Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the petitioner fails. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is hereby affirmed.

Pending application, if any, also closed.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.

Certified copy, as per rules.