1 - Hemant Verma S/o Krishna Kumar Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Q v. 1 - Pratham Verma S/o Hemant Verma, Aged About 1.5 Years, Through The Legal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 481 of 2025 1 - Hemant Verma S/o Krishna Kumar Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Q. No.- 3/3, Ispat Nagar, Risali, P.S. - Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... applicant versus 1 - Pratham Verma S/o Hemant Verma, Aged About 1.5 Years, Through The Legal Guardian Mother Leena Verma Aged About 32 Years, R/o C/o Behind Basanti Barchhiya Kurmi Bording, Tatyapara, Beside Dr. Surendra Shukla Gali, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant :
Legal Reasoning
9. Be that as it may, since, there is no dispute that the respondent is the minor son of the petitioner, it is the moral and legal liability of the petitioner to maintain his son. It is no where mentioned that the petitioner has provided any maintenance to his son or taking care of him. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1314 has held in Para 9 & 10 of its judgment. “9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. MANU/SC/0605/2014: (2015) 6 SCC 353 This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [MANU/SC/0420/1987 (1987) 1 SCC 624: 1987 SCC (Cri.) 237] the Court opined that: (SCC p. 631, para 16) 4 16. Proceedings Under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) V Veeraswamy (K.) [ MANU/SC/0719/1991: (1991) 2 SCC 375: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose Under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, para 3) 3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife. 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1159/1996: (1996) 4 SCC 479: 1996 SCC (Cri.) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that: (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15.... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [ MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 356), reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 6) 6.... Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [MANU/SC/0067/1978: (1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [ MANU/SC/0193/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri.) 787). 5 Recently [ in Nagendrappa Natikar v. 11. MANU/SC/0248/2013: (2014) 14 SCC 452: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 407: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Neelamma 10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions Under Section 125 of the Code. Such an Impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.” 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering that the respondent is one and half year old son of the petitioner who is claiming maintenance of his father and also in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg (Supra) as well as in view of the judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, I do not found any good ground to admit the present revision petition and to issue notice to the respondent. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.17 15:45:22 +0530
Arguments
Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 16/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. On due consideration and the reasons mentioned in the present application, the I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed. The delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. 2. The challenge in the present petition is the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MCC No. 950/2023 whereby an 2 amount of Rs. 8000/- per month has been granted as maintenance to the respondent who is one and half year old aged son of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married with the mother of the respondent on 30.06.2021 as per their rites and rituals and out of their wedlock the respondent has born on 07.07.2022. After some time of marriage, the dispute arose between the husband and wife and both of them were resided separately. The present respondent is presently residing with his mother. The respondent had filed an application on 02.09.2023 for grant of monthly maintenance amount from his father i.e. the petitioner. In the application, it is averred that his mother was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner for demand of dowry and he used to beat her regularly and therefore his mother started residing separately from his father. After death of his maternal grand father, his mother has got compassionate appointment, having responsibility of her old aged mother and younger brother, whereas his father is also in employment of State Bank of India and posted at Gurur Branch, Dist- Balod. His father is also having 20 Acres of agricultural land at Village- Lamkani, Dist- Durg and in sound financial condition. Therefore, he prays for Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance amount. 4. Replying the application filed by the present respondent, the present petitioner has submitted that his wife is not willing to reside with him and she herself on her own will, without any sufficient reason, resided separately from him. Despite various efforts made by him, she could not return back to obey the marital relationship. She is also in government service and having sufficient means of her income. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance. 5. Learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, decided the application and granted Rs. 8000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent who is the son of the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the respondent does not want to live with the petitioner and she is residing separately without any sufficient cause, although, he is not denying liability towards his son, but he wanted to keep his son with him along with his wife but the wife herself does not want to live with him. Since, the mother of the respondent is having sufficient income as she is also in government service, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance amount. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the minor son of the petitioner who is residing with his mother. From perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the petitioner is employed as cashier at State Bank of India, Gurur Branch, Dist- Balod, whereas the mother of the respondent has obtained compassionate appointment after death of her father who is having liability of her mother as well as her younger brother.