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