SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Govind Singh vs Beena Singh 12 Wpc/1109/2019 Ram … on 26 June, 2019

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No.460 of 2018

Order Reserved on : 4.4.2019

Order Passed on : 26.6.2019

Govind Singh, S/o Late Shri Mithai Lal Singh, aged about 46 years, R/o New
Mines Quarter, Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh
—- Applicant
versus
Beena Singh, W/o Shri Govind Singh, aged about 43 years, R/o Charcha
Colliery, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent
——————————————————————————————————

For Applicant : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate
For Respondent : None

——————————————————————————————————

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V. ORDER

1. This revision has been preferred by the husband against the order

dated 23.3.2018 passed by the Family Court, Baikunthpur, District

Korea in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.57 of 2017, whereby the

Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the Respondent/wife and

granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/-.

2. It is not in dispute that marriage between the parties was

solemnised in the year 1992 and since the year 1996 they are

residing separately from each other. It is also not in dispute that

out of their wedlock, a child/son, namely, Krishna Singh took birth

in the year 1996, who is presently pursuing his studies. Before the

Family Court, the Respondent/wife moved an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with averments that
2

after the marriage, the Applicant/husband and his family members

used to torture her for the reason that she brought lesser dowry.

The husband used to send her back to her maternal house on one

or the other pretext frequently. When she got pregnant, at that time

also, he sent her to her maternal house. Their child/son took birth

at her maternal house. On giving intimation to the husband, he

visited her maternal house to meet them, but he refused to take

them back with him. Since then, she is residing separately from

the husband. Their son is pursuing higher studies and is

dependent upon her. Though she is working as an Anganbadi

Worker, from the income generated from that employment she is

unable to maintain herself and the son. The husband is working

with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) and is getting

monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/-. Therefore, she is

also entitled to live in the same standard as the husband is living.

She has claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

3. In his reply, the Applicant/husband denied the allegations made

against him by the Respondent/wife. He pleaded that the wife

used to quarrel with her mother-in-law and insult her. She used to

ask him to live separately from his family. On getting pregnant,

she, after quarreling, went back to her maternal house. Even after

taking birth of their child, he was not informed about this nor was

he called to her maternal house to visit them. After 6 months of

birth of the child, she came to his house. She was not allowing her

mother-in-law to see and touch the child/son and 15 days

thereafter she herself went back to her maternal house. When she

did not return to his house, he sent her a legal notice. Thereafter,

she lodged a false report for an offence punishable under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, he was acquitted of the
3

charge framed against him in that matter. Thus, it is clear that she

is residing separately from him without any reasonable cause for

the last 20 years. She is working as an Anganbadi Worker and she

also gives tuition to different children. Therefore, she is able to

maintain herself. The son has attained majority and, therefore, he

is not entitled to get any maintenance. The application for grant of

maintenance has been filed after 20 years of their separation and,

therefore, it is not maintainable.

4. Before the Family Court, the Respondent/wife examined herself

and her mother Bimladevi. The Applicant/husband also examined

himself and one Vinod Singh. After hearing Learned Counsel

appearing for the parties, the Family Court, vide the impugned

order dated 23.3.2018, allowed the application under Section 125

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and granted monthly

maintenance of Rs.8,000/- in favour of the Respondent/wife.

Hence, this revision by the husband.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband submitted

that from the evidence available on record it is well established that

the Respondent/wife is residing separately from the

Applicant/husband without any reasonable cause for the last 20

years, but this fact has been ignored by the Court below. From the

evidence, it is also established that the Respondent/wife is working

as an Anganbadi Worker and from that work she is getting monthly

income of Rs.2,700/-. Both the Respondent/wife and her mother

have also admitted the fact that the Respondent/wife also gives

tuition to 7-8 children. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is

also clear that the Respondent/wife has sufficient means to

maintain herself. For this reason, she is not entitled to get any
4

maintenance. It is further submitted that she is residing separately

from the Applicant/husband for the last 20 years and the

application for maintenance was filed after 20 years of the

separation, but on this aspect of the matter also, the Family Court

has not paid attention.

6. None appeared for the Respondent.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and

perused the record with due care.

8. It is not in dispute that from the year 1996 the Respondent/wife is

residing separately from the Applicant/husband. It is also not in

dispute that in the year 1996, son Krishna Singh took birth and

since then the Respondent/wife is residing separately from the

Applicant/husband. As deposed by the Respondent/wife, when

she got pregnant, the Applicant/husband took her to her maternal

house and left her there. After 3-4 months of the birth of the son,

her parents took her to her matrimonial house. The

Applicant/husband, after keeping her with him for a few days, left

her at her maternal house. Since then she is residing at her

maternal house. Though mother of the Respondent/wife,

Bimladevi has admitted the fact that quarrels had been taking

place between the Respondent/wife and her mother-in-law, she

has also deposed that in those quarrels the Applicant/husband had

been scolding the Respondent/wife and had also been beating her.

It has also been stated by her that the Applicant/husband had

frequently been sending the Respondent/wife back to her maternal

house.

9. Contrary to this, the Applicant/husband has stated that when the

Respondent/wife went to her maternal house, he sent her
5

intimation 2-3 times to return to her matrimonial house and when

she did not return, he sent her a legal notice through his Advocate.

Thereafter, the Respondent/wife lodged the complaint for offence

punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He has

admitted the fact that thereafter he filed a petition against the wife

for divorce. There is no evidence on record to the effect that the

legal notice sent by the husband to the wife before filing of the

petition by the husband for divorce was in respect of restitution of

conjugal rights. The Applicant/husband has also admitted the fact

that his divorce petition has been dismissed against which he has

preferred an appeal before the High Court. From the above itself,

it is clear that he is adamant since beginning for getting divorce

from the Respondent/wife. There is no evidence on record to show

that the Applicant/husband ever tried socially or legally to bring the

Respondent/wife back to him. Though the Applicant/husband is

acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code, mere his acquittal of the charge cannot establish that the

report of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was

false. There might be several other reasons for the acquittal.

Copy of the judgment of acquittal has not been placed on record by

the husband, therefore, it is not appropriate to form any definite

opinion regarding ground of the acquittal.

10. As regards filing of the application for grant of maintenance after

20 years of her separation from the Applicant/husband, the

Respondent/wife has properly explained the reason therefor in her

deposition. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that

the Respondent/wife has sufficient cause to reside separately from

the husband. Thus, the finding of the Family Court in this regard is

according to the evidence available on record.
6

11. With regard to quantum of maintenance, no doubt, the

Respondent/wife is working as an Anganbadi Worker and thereby

she is earning income of Rs.2,700/- per month. Though she has

admitted that she also gives tuition to 7-8 children, she would be

earning handsome income by giving tuition is not established in

any way and on her income her major son, who is pursuing higher

studies, is also dependent. Though the major son is not entitled to

nor can he claim for any maintenance, from the evidence on record

it is clear that he is dependent on the income of his mother. From

the evidence on record, it is also established that the

Applicant/husband is working with the SECL from the year 1993

and presently he is working as a Roof Bolter with the said

company. What salary is he getting from that work has not been

disclosed by him, but, a presumption can be drawn that he would

be getting a handsome monthly salary from that employment.

There is no evidence on record to show that any person is

dependent upon the Applicant/husband. Thus, considering the

social and financial status of the Applicant/husband, the grant of

maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Respondent/wife is

just and proper.

12. Resultantly, I find no merit in the revision. It is, therefore,

dismissed.

13. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this

order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation