CRR/1836/2023 of SMT. RAMKALI BAI Vs DIMAKCHAND SAHU on 1 February 2024

ORDER

In this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 19(4) of theFamily Court Act, 1984, the applicant has challenged the order dated20.03.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District- Chhindwara in MJCR No.662/2020, whereby the application filed by the applicant underSection 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and therespondent has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- per month to theapplicant as maintenance.

2 . It is not in dispute that the applicant is legally wedded wife ofrespondent. The respondent performed second marriage without giving divorceto the applicant. Respondent has separated the applicant from him, thereafter,the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In year 2015, theapplicant filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C being MJCNo.372/15 which was allowed on 31.07.2017 and awarded maintenance amountof Rs.5600/- per month in favour of the applicant, thereafter, the applicant filedanother application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C for enhancement of themaintenance amount being MJCR No.662/2020. In that application it is statedthat the respondent is getting pension of Rs.70,000/- per month and due toinsufficient maintenance amount, her maintenance amount should be enhanced.The Court vide order dated 20.03.2023 allowed the application of the applicantand enhanced the amount from Rs.5600/- to 7500/- per month. Being aggrievedby that order, the applicant has filed this present revision.

3 . Applicant has challenged the impugned order on the ground ofsufficient income of the respondent. It is also submitted that respondent has notfiled any document that he is paying loan amount of Rs.34000/- per month.Looking to the inflation, at least 10,000/- per month should be enhanced. Thetrial Court has enhanced only Rs.2,000/-. It is also stated that respondent isgetting pension of Rs.49,809/- (Ex-D/1) per month. The trial Court has failed toappreciate that wife is also entitled to live life equivalent to status of the husband. The amount which has been awarded is insufficient to satisfy the dayto day expenses incurred by the applicant. Hence, his maintenance amount maybe suitably enhanced looking to the present scenario.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submittedthat the trial Court has enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.5600/- toRs.7500/- without any reasons and reliable evidence. The applicant is receivingdeserted pension and the applicant has proper source of income. It is alsosubmitted that respondent is a retired teacher earning pension of Rs.49000/-. Hehas to pay EMI of house loan and consumer loan of Rs.45000/- per month.After payment of EMI, he is unable to maintain himself from the pensionamount but trial Court did not consider this fact. It is also submitted that thetrial Court has passed the order that enhanced amount will be given from thedate of filing of the application while it should be given from the date of order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6 . It is apparent from the record that respondent performed second marriage without divorcing the present applicant and due to their wedlock, hehad been blessed with two children, therefore he has responsibility to maintainhis second wife, children and mother also. From the record it also appears thatrespondent is well settled person and earns handsome amount as pension. FromExhibit-D/1 which is pension slip, it reveals that respondent is getting pension ofRs.49,809/- per month. Respondent has not filed any document which showsthat he is repaying monthly loan as EMI of any amount. From the record, itdoes not appear that applicant has any source of income.

7. In the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha - (2021) 2 SCC 324, it has beenheld by the Apex Court that the obligation of the husband to providemaintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. If the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. Pleathat the husband does not possess any source of income ipso facto does notabsolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and haseducational qualifications. The onus is on the husband to establish withnecessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable tomaintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond hiscontrol. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, anadverse inference may be drawn by the Court. By considering maintenanceallowance, the Court must have due regard to the standard of living of thehusband, as well as the spiraling inflation rates and high costs of living. TheApex Court also considered about the maintenance of minor children for theireducational expenses and living expenses including expenses for food, clothing,residence and medical expenses and held that it should be a reasonable amountto be awarded for them.

8. Considering the present scenario of living standard, necessaryrequirement of livelihood for aged woman and in the light of the observationmade by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha(supra), i n my consideredopinion, the maintenance amount of Rs.7500/- per month granted by the Courtbelow to the applicant/wife appears to be on the lower side, looking to the day-by-day increase in cost of living now-a-days, therefore, this criminal revision ispartly allowed. The maintenance amount is enhanced from Rs.7500/- per monthto Rs.12,000/- per month, which shall be paid by the husband/respondent to theapplicant/wife from the date of impugned order i.e. 20.03.2023. The arrearsshall be paid by the husband/respondent within a period of 3 months fromtoday.

anu

9. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of.

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)JUDGE