Sohiniben Vinodchandra Shrivastava vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

The present Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the applicant seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1076 of 2009, vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2011, from the date of the application.

The case of the applicant is that the marriage between the applicant and the opponent was solemnized about twenty years prior to the filing of the proceedings in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, two children were born who are residing with the applicant. According to the applicant, after a short period of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and physical abuse by the opponent and his mother and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home, and since then, she has been deserted without any maintenance. The applicant is residing in a rented house, suffering from ailments, and earning a limited income from a trust, whereas the opponent is stated to be financially sound, running "Laxmi Provision Store" and other businesses. The applicant had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabad by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1076 of 2009 seeking maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month; however, vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2011, the Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision application. The opponent has contested the proceedings by denying the allegations and contending that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that he has limited income and other responsibilities, and both parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.

Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-wife was earlier engaged in a part-time job with a trust and was earning only about Rs. 4,000/- per month; however, she has now left the said employment and has no independent source of income, nor is she receiving any pension or other monetary benefits. It is further submitted that the respondent was earlier paying Rs. 1,500/- towards maintenance for the son, but since the son has now attained majority, the said liability has ceased and the respondent has no other dependents to maintain. In such circumstances, considering the rising cost of living and the financial difficulties faced by the applicant, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the learned Family Court is grossly inadequate and insufficient for her sustenance. It is, therefore, urged that the maintenance amount be suitably enhanced, having regard to the facts of the case and the financial capacity of the respondent. Therefore, the present application may be allowed.

Learned advocate for the respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any error in awarding maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is contended that the applicant-wife is earning and was receiving an income of about Rs. 4,000/- per month, and therefore, she is not entitled to any enhancement as claimed. It is further submitted that the amount awarded by the Family Court is just, proper and in accordance with law, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, it is urged that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order, and the present revision application deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Family Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant-wife from 07.05.2009. The present Revision Application has been filed seeking enhancement of the said amount. The relationship between the parties as husband and wife, as well as the entitlement of the applicant to receive maintenance, is not in dispute.

It further appears that, though the applicant has contended that the respondent is earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month, the learned Family Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has assessed the income of the respondent at Rs. 15,000/- per month in the absence of cogent documentary evidence, considering that the respondent is engaged in independent business. The learned Family Judge also took into account that the applicant was earning about Rs. 4,500/- per month from a charitable trust and, on that basis, awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. However, the said amount appears to be unjust and inadequate in view of the principles laid down in the judgment of Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, 2008 (2) GLR 1159, and Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, wherein it has been held that merely because the wife is earning cannot be a ground to deny or restrict reasonable maintenance. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent is no longer required to maintain the son, as he has attained majority, and no other liabilities have been brought on record. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the rise in the cost of living, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month is inadequate.

From the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is well settled that a husband cannot evade his liability to maintain his wife and children, as it is both a legal and moral obligation. The law is clear that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and minor children, and if he neglects or fails to pay maintenance as awarded by the Court, he cannot be said to be entitled to equitable relief in matrimonial proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Miteshbhai Dinkarbhai Makvana vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250224. Further, in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353, and Anju Garg and Ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, it has been held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and minor children, and that an able-bodied husband is expected to earn his livelihood even by physical labour and cannot avoid his obligation except on legally permissible grounds.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the duty of the husband to maintain his wife stands on a higher pedestal. The learned Family Judge has, therefore, committed an error in awarding inadequate maintenance in light of the husband's income, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decision in Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303, has observed that the Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living. The plea of the husband that he has no source of income does not ipso facto absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife, particularly if he is an able-bodied person possessing sufficient educational qualifications.

In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Application stands partly allowed. Accordingly, the maintenance amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month, payable from the date of the application, i.e., 07.05.2009. The judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1076 of 2009 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.