Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 356 of 2022 1. Poonam Gupta W/o Priyanshu Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Jainagar, Police Station Jainagar, At Present R/o Vakil Colony, Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Shanvi Gupta D/o Priyanshu Gupta, Aged At Present Near About 3 Years 6 Months, Through Her Natural Guardian / Mother Poonam Gupta, W/o Priyanshu Gupta, Aged At Present Near About 25 Years, R/o Jainagar, Police Station Jainagar, At Present R/o Vakil Colony, Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicants versus Priyanshu Gupta S/o Vinod Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Jainagar, Police Station Jainagar, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicants For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 10:58:08 +0530 22.07.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Family 2 Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.76/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant No.1/wife and partially allowed in respect of applicant No.2 and directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 8,000/- till she attains the age of majority. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 24.11.2016, and out of the said wedlock, a daughter named Shanvi Gupta (applicant No. 2) was born. The applicant alleged that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry, and an FIR was also lodged in this regard. She further submitted that she had to leave the matrimonial home due to ill- treatment and had sufficient grounds to reside separately. It was also contended that the respondent has failed to maintain both his wife and daughter despite being legally bound to do so. It was averred that the respondent owns 5 acres of land and earns approximately Rs. 2 lakhs annually from agricultural produce on 2 acres. Additionally, it was claimed that he runs an electronics/mobile shop with an income of about Rs. 1 lakh per month. Accordingly, the applicant sought a monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000 each for herself and her daughter, totaling Rs. 40,000 per month. Evidence was submitted by the applicant to support her claims regarding ill-treatment and the respondent’s income. 3. The respondent, in his reply, denied all allegations and claimed that the applicant left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason. He also denied owning or running a mobile/electronics shop and disputed the alleged income. He contended that the FIR was falsely lodged and that the applicant herself is unwilling to cohabit. After recording the evidence 3 of the applicant and witnesses—Virendra Kumar Gupta, Priyanshu Gupta, and Vinay Kumar Kashyap—the Family Court partly allowed the application. It awarded Rs. 8,000 per month as maintenance for the daughter. However, the wife’s application was rejected on the ground that she is employed as a government school teacher with a monthly income of Rs. 35,400 and is capable of maintaining herself. Aggrieved by the order, the applicants have filed this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The application cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the wife is employed and earning Rs. 35,400/- per month. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife is working as an Upper Division Teacher on a contractual basis and is not a permanent government servant. It is a well-settled principle of law that mere employment or earning capacity of the wife does not dis entitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when she is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining the minor daughter. The learned Family Court recorded a specific finding that the wife is living separately for sufficient reasons, primarily due to ill-treatment and harassment, which have been duly proved. Despite this, the Family Court erroneously denied maintenance to the wife, ignoring her limited and insecure income and her dual responsibility of caring for herself and her minor daughter. Furthermore, the maintenance awarded to the daughter is grossly inadequate. A sum of only Rs. 8,000/- per month has been awarded, which is not commensurate with the growing needs of a child who is about to begin her schooling in KG-1. The Family Court also failed to consider the overall financial needs of both the mother and the child, as well as the respondent’s capacity to maintain them. The rejection of the 4 wife’s application solely on the ground of her employment is legally unsustainable. The daughter is entitled to enhanced maintenance, and the impugned order requires modification to that extent, as well as in respect of granting maintenance to the wife. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No.1 has stated that she is employed as a teacher in a government school in Bhaiyathan and receives a monthly salary of Rs. 35,400/-. She has also admitted in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination that her honorarium is fixed at Rs. 35,400/- per month. For the purposes of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is essential that the wife is unable to maintain herself. In the present case, the applicant, who is a teacher in a government school and receives a salary of Rs. 35,400/- per month, cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself. Even though the applicant may have valid reasons for living separately from the respondent, she is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is admitted that Applicant No. 02/daughter is residing with her mother and is living separately from her father. It is also admitted that the father is not maintaining her, and the salary received by the applicant No.1 is not sufficient and adequate for the maintenance, education, and medical needs of Applicant No. 02. It is the moral responsibility and legal 5 duty of the respondent to provide maintenance for his minor child. Therefore, the application is dismissed in respect of applicant No.01 and the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. is partially accepted in respect of applicant No.2. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti