Revisionist v. Rohit Singh

Brief facts of the case as per record are that the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on

07.03.2019. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist was allegedly subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demands. Upon failure to fulfill such demands, she was forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home and compelled to return to her parental house. Despite efforts made by her father to amicably resolve the matter, no settlement could be arrived at. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed Family Case No. 368 of 2019 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking judicial separation. In response, the revisionist instituted the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of ₹50,000/- per month, citing the respondent's income and family status.

3. In his objections, the respondent/husband claimed that the revisionist/wife was suffering from epilepsy and depression, 1 which had been concealed at the time of marriage, and hence she was not entitled to maintenance. The revisionist denied these allegations and contended that the medical documents were fabricated by the respondent and his family. Initially, the trial court, vide order dated

17.09.2022, granted interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month, directing both parties to submit affidavits regarding their income. However, by the final judgment dated 02.03.2024, the learned Family Court dismissed her application for maintenance. Hence, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Family Court erred in rejecting the application on two incorrect grounds: (i) that the revisionist was living separately without just cause, and (ii) that she suffered from a mental illness concealed prior to marriage. It is argued that both findings are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The revisionist had lodged an FIR against the respondent and his family under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A chargesheet has been filed and trial is ongoing. Therefore, the finding that the revisionist left the matrimonial home without justification is perverse and arbitrary. The observation of the trial court that revisionist was living separately without any reason is arbitrary and perverse as trial court without considering the facts of the case has given the said finding. Regarding the allegation of mental illness, it was submitted that the revisionist had denied any such condition and termed the medical records fabricated. The learned trial court’s relied on the evidence led by the respondent/husband pertaining to medical illness of revisionist/wife without proper verification, therefore, the findings are unsustainable in the eyes of law.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that the Family Court failed to appreciate that a wife is entitled to live separately for justifiable reasons, including cruelty and dowry harassment, and that such separation does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. In support, reliance is placed on Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is 2 specially enacted to protect women and children… It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution…”

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon the judgment of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 564-565 of 2015, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a legally wedded wife living separately is entitled to lead a life with dignity, as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become destitute or a beggar. Further, It was further submitted that the respondent had admitted before the court below that he earns ₹30,000/- per month, yet this fact was not properly considered by the Family Court.

7. It is also submitted that the Family Court wrongly concluded that the revisionist left the matrimonial home without any reason and that she concealed her illness, thereby denying her maintenance. Such findings are contrary to the evidence on record. The court failed to appreciate that once the status of the revisionist as a legally wedded wife is admitted, she becomes entitled to maintenance, unless specifically disentitled under law. The Family Court also misread and misapplied the judgment of Sunita Kachwaha & Others Vs. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, which in fact supports the revisionist’s case.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/husband would submit that revisionist-wife is well qualified and working as Teacher, therefore, she has no need for financial support. He would further submit that the finding of court below as stated above in the impugned order is based on documents filed by opposite party before the court below; findings recorded by the court below while dismissing application for maintenance are based on evidence on record and cannot be termed as perverse, therefore, there is no perversity, illegality in the order passed by the court below, therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below is justified and needs no interference.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 3 the record.

10. It is undisputed that the parties are legally wedded spouses, having married on 07.03.2019. It is established on record that the respondent earns ₹30,000/- per month as concluded by the learned trial court in paragraph-14 of the impugned judgment and order. It is a bounden duty of husband to maintain his legally wedded wife, who is not having sufficient mean to maintain herself in an appropriate manner.

11. In my considered view, the learned Family Court erred in holding that the revisionist is living separately without any reason is unsustainable as the revisionist was meted out cruelty both mental and physical from her husband and has already lodged F.I.R. against her husband and her in-laws, in which, charge sheet has been filed by the after Investigation which makes it a justifiable reason for her to live separately and moreover the fact that she had concealed a medical condition, is not supported by cogent evidence and are contrary to the settled principles of law. It is further noteworthy respondent/husband himself filed Family Suit No. 368 of 2019 ‘Rahul Singh vs. Jyoti’, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking judicial separation. This clearly indicates his own intent and willingness to live separately from the revisionist.

12. In the case of Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

13. The criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Kashipur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 318 of 2021 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay ₹9,000/- (Rupees Nine 4 Thousand only) per month as maintenance to the revisionist from the date of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court. The said maintenance amount shall be paid by the respondent/husband in every month on or before 10th day of each English calendar month directly in the bank account of the revisionist/wife. The entire arrears shall be paid by respondent/husband to the revisionist/wife within one month from the date of this judgment and order.

14. The revisionist/wife shall provide her bank detail including the name of account holder, account number, name of the bank, branch name, I.F.S.C. code to the respondent/husband on an affidavit or on whatsapp mobile number of the respondent/husband that the respondent/husband shall deposit the amount of maintenance directly in her account.

15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Family Court concerned for information/necessary compliance. Mamta (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.06.2025 5