Smt. Khatija Begum and Another v. Rahees Ahmad) under Section

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Meerut in Case No. 282 of 2015 (Smt. Khatija Begum and Another Vs. Rahees Ahmad) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order and furthermore prays to direct opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance amount to the revisionist on monthtly basis. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is husband and have two sons and one daughter those have become major. The opposite party no. 2 neglected to maintain the revisionist that is the reason she is living apart from him. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the opposite party no. 2 which was rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 23.01.2024 holding that she had failed to prove that she was living apart from the husband with sufficient reason and also the fact that she filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after inordinate delay and also on the basis of fact that the opposite party no. 2 is 40 % handicapped. He further submits that the revisionist/ the wife anyhow maintained herself and son Amzad Ahmad who has now become major with the support of her parents. Now, when she has no any support that is the reason she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance from his husband/the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2015. She stated clearly that she was subjected to harassment by the opposite party no. 2 and once the opposite party no. 2 tried to kill her by setting her ablaze though no any F.I.R. was lodged in this regard but only on this ground it cannot be said that she was not subjected to harassment. The opposite party no. 2 is handicapped but being regular employee gets pension i.e. the basic Rs. 12,660/- plus D.A. regarding which he has admitted that he gets pension Rs. 16,000/- per month. In this way, the learned trial court has not considered all these facts while deciding the maintenance application, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the present revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case admittedly the revisionist is wife and opposite party no. 2 gets pension as aforesaid. The revisionist is living in the house purchased by the opposite party no. 2 in her name and also in his own name but she has possessed the entire home and lives there and also has let half portion of the house and gets rent Rs. 8,000/- per month that is sufficient to maintain herself. For a period of 19 years she is living apart and has not claimed any maintenance from the opposite party no. 2, therefore, she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself and where wife is unable to maintain herself only then she is entitled for maintenance from the husband. In this way, the learned trial court has passed the order dated 23.07.2024 after considering all the facts of the case and there is no any illegality in the order. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of material on record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.07.2024, it appears that admittedly the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are wife and husband. The children from the wedlock have become major. As per statement of the revisionist she was subjected to harassment on the part of opposite party no. 2 and was also tried to be killed by setting her ablaze by the opposite party no. 2 in the year 1996 though she did not lodge any F.I.R. in this regard. This was the reason she is living apart from him. In this period of time no amount for maintenance of wife and minor child (now major) was given by the opposite party no. 2 to the revisionist but she maintained herself with support of her inmates. The house was purchased by the opposite party no. 2 in the name of the revisionist but it is used by her for the purposes of living, half of the house is in the name of opposite party no. 2. She denied the fact that the house has been let by her on rent but stated that one room is in the possession of her elder daughter-in-law and the son. This also shows that the house is not let by her on rent and there is no any other source of income. This shows that the opposite party no. 2 neglected her to maintain and even today he is not providing any amount to her for maintenance and she is unable to maintain herself. Admittedly, the revisionist gets pension after retirement. The sanctioned basic pension was Rs. 21,100/- and commuted amount was Rs. 8,440/-, residual pension per month was Rs. 12,660/- as per P.P.O. issued from the Office of Principal Controller of Defence. It shows that the opposite party no. 2 is getting pension and his being handicapped to the extent of 40% is not a bar in his income from pension. In considered opinion of this Court, the wife/the revisionist cannot be left in destitute in this age and she is also entitled for maintenance from the opposite party no. 2/the husband and the amount Rs. 5,000/- per month is fixed as maintenance from the date of application. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Meerut in Case No. 282 of 2015 (Smt. Khatija Begum and Another Vs. Rahees Ahmad) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order and furthermore prays to direct opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance amount to the revisionist on monthtly basis. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no. 2 is husband and have two sons and one daughter those have become major. The opposite party no. 2 neglected to maintain the revisionist that is the reason she is living apart from him. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the opposite party no. 2 which was rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 23.01.2024 holding that she had failed to prove that she was living apart from the husband with sufficient reason and also the fact that she filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after inordinate delay and also on the basis of fact that the opposite party no. 2 is 40 % handicapped. He further submits that the revisionist/ the wife anyhow maintained herself and son Amzad Ahmad who has now become major with the support of her parents. Now, when she has no any support that is the reason she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance from his husband/the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2015. She stated clearly that she was subjected to harassment by the opposite party no. 2 and once the opposite party no. 2 tried to kill her by setting her ablaze though no any F.I.R. was lodged in this regard but only on this ground it cannot be said that she was not subjected to harassment. The opposite party no. 2 is handicapped but being regular employee gets pension i.e. the basic Rs. 12,660/- plus D.A. regarding which he has admitted that he gets pension Rs. 16,000/- per month. In this way, the learned trial court has not considered all these facts while deciding the maintenance application, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the present revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case admittedly the revisionist is wife and opposite party no. 2 gets pension as aforesaid. The revisionist is living in the house purchased by the opposite party no. 2 in her name and also in his own name but she has possessed the entire home and lives there and also has let half portion of the house and gets rent Rs. 8,000/- per month that is sufficient to maintain herself. For a period of 19 years she is living apart and has not claimed any maintenance from the opposite party no. 2, therefore, she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself and where wife is unable to maintain herself only then she is entitled for maintenance from the husband. In this way, the learned trial court has passed the order dated 23.07.2024 after considering all the facts of the case and there is no any illegality in the order. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of material on record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.07.2024, it appears that admittedly the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are wife and husband. The children from the wedlock have become major. As per statement of the revisionist she was subjected to harassment on the part of opposite party no. 2 and was also tried to be killed by setting her ablaze by the opposite party no. 2 in the year 1996 though she did not lodge any F.I.R. in this regard. This was the reason she is living apart from him. In this period of time no amount for maintenance of wife and minor child (now major) was given by the opposite party no. 2 to the revisionist but she maintained herself with support of her inmates. The house was purchased by the opposite party no. 2 in the name of the revisionist but it is used by her for the purposes of living, half of the house is in the name of opposite party no. 2. She denied the fact that the house has been let by her on rent but stated that one room is in the possession of her elder daughter-in-law and the son. This also shows that the house is not let by her on rent and there is no any other source of income. This shows that the opposite party no. 2 neglected her to maintain and even today he is not providing any amount to her for maintenance and she is unable to maintain herself. Admittedly, the revisionist gets pension after retirement. The sanctioned basic pension was Rs. 21,100/- and commuted amount was Rs. 8,440/-, residual pension per month was Rs. 12,660/- as per P.P.O. issued from the Office of Principal Controller of Defence. It shows that the opposite party no. 2 is getting pension and his being handicapped to the extent of 40% is not a bar in his income from pension. In considered opinion of this Court, the wife/the revisionist cannot be left in destitute in this age and she is also entitled for maintenance from the opposite party no. 2/the husband and the amount Rs. 5,000/- per month is fixed as maintenance from the date of application. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Suraj Srivastav SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad