Salma Bano v. Parvez Alam), under section

Revisionist :- Parvez Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Chand Yadav Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA for the State- opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgement and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case no. 77 of 2022 (Salma Bano vs. Parvez Alam), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that, opposite party no. 2, is duly wedded wife of revisionist. Due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house in the month of February, 2018. Opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, on the premises that revisionist, who has sufficient means of income from landed property and also getting salary, as he is working in Saudi Arabia and legal, social and moral obligation to maintain her, has neglected her, as a result she is living separately from him. The petition was vehemently opposed by the revisionist on the ground that he has not neglected opposite party nos. 2 rather it is opposite party no. 2, who has neglected his family members and is living separately from him in her parental house. It is also the case of the revisionist that, he is always ready to keep opposite party no. 2 in his house and maintain her, but deliberately she is not living with him. It was also his case that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient means to maintain herself.

4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur, on account of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced in support thereof has came to a conclusion that opposite party no. 2, who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist and has sufficient reason to live separately from the revisionist and that she is also unable to maintain herself. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has also made a mention in his order that revisionist being husband of opposite party no. 2, legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain her and has also sufficient means for the same as he has landed property and working in Saudi Arabia and getting handsome amount and is unnecessarily avoiding to maintain her. With these findings the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the petition of opposite party no. 2 by the Judgement and order impugned and directed him to pay Rs. 8000/- per month from the date of her application. Aggrieved with the same, this revision has been filed.

5. It has been sought to be contended by the leaned counsel for the revisionist that finding returned by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient reason to live separately from the revisionist is contrary to the evidence on record and is therefore illegal and perverse. It has also sought to be contended that it was opposite party no. 2 who neglected the revisionist and was not living with him, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance from the revisionist for herself. It is also contended that revisionist lost his job due to the proceedings initiated by the opposite party no. 2 and therefore he is suffering from financial crisis.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA have submitted that there is no illegality in the finding returned by learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient and good reason for living separately from revisionist and that she is unable to maintain herself, whereas revisionist, who is not only legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain her but has also sufficient means for the same, is unnecessarily avoiding to maintain her. revision should be dismissed.

7. It is not disputed before this Court that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also not disputed that revisionist has landed property and have sufficient means of income from landed property. During the course of argument it was fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 and the same was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, on 21.01.2025.

8. I have occasion to peruse the judgement and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Azamgarh and has no hesitation to say that learned Principal Judge has given a categorical finding therein that opposite party no. 2, who is duly wedded wife of the revisionist, being forced, is living separately from the revisionist and has no sufficient means to maintain herself, whereas revisionist has income from landed property and thus has the sufficient means to maintain her. Present criminal revision seems to have been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings and is nothing but a ploy of not paying the maintenance, which the Court had ordered.

9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 wherein the Court has held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ensure that a woman, who has left or thrown out of matrimonial house, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean "to lead the life of an animal", rather the wife would be entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. reported in (AIR 1997 SC 3397 has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 it has held that:- "Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal[15] 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."

12. In view of the averment made above and reasoning advanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to record my concurrence with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the finding returned by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh that it is adverse to the pleadings and evidence, contrarily it is as per pleadings and evidence and therefore needs no interference in the revision.

13. In the result, revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Revisionist :- Parvez Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Chand Yadav Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA for the State- opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgement and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case no. 77 of 2022 (Salma Bano vs. Parvez Alam), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that, opposite party no. 2, is duly wedded wife of revisionist. Due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house in the month of February, 2018. Opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, on the premises that revisionist, who has sufficient means of income from landed property and also getting salary, as he is working in Saudi Arabia and legal, social and moral obligation to maintain her, has neglected her, as a result she is living separately from him. The petition was vehemently opposed by the revisionist on the ground that he has not neglected opposite party nos. 2 rather it is opposite party no. 2, who has neglected his family members and is living separately from him in her parental house. It is also the case of the revisionist that, he is always ready to keep opposite party no. 2 in his house and maintain her, but deliberately she is not living with him. It was also his case that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient means to maintain herself.

4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur, on account of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced in support thereof has came to a conclusion that opposite party no. 2, who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist and has sufficient reason to live separately from the revisionist and that she is also unable to maintain herself. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has also made a mention in his order that revisionist being husband of opposite party no. 2, legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain her and has also sufficient means for the same as he has landed property and working in Saudi Arabia and getting handsome amount and is unnecessarily avoiding to maintain her. With these findings the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the petition of opposite party no. 2 by the Judgement and order impugned and directed him to pay Rs. 8000/- per month from the date of her application. Aggrieved with the same, this revision has been filed.

5. It has been sought to be contended by the leaned counsel for the revisionist that finding returned by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient reason to live separately from the revisionist is contrary to the evidence on record and is therefore illegal and perverse. It has also sought to be contended that it was opposite party no. 2 who neglected the revisionist and was not living with him, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance from the revisionist for herself. It is also contended that revisionist lost his job due to the proceedings initiated by the opposite party no. 2 and therefore he is suffering from financial crisis.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA have submitted that there is no illegality in the finding returned by learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient and good reason for living separately from revisionist and that she is unable to maintain herself, whereas revisionist, who is not only legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain her but has also sufficient means for the same, is unnecessarily avoiding to maintain her. revision should be dismissed.

7. It is not disputed before this Court that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also not disputed that revisionist has landed property and have sufficient means of income from landed property. During the course of argument it was fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 and the same was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, on 21.01.2025.

8. I have occasion to peruse the judgement and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Azamgarh and has no hesitation to say that learned Principal Judge has given a categorical finding therein that opposite party no. 2, who is duly wedded wife of the revisionist, being forced, is living separately from the revisionist and has no sufficient means to maintain herself, whereas revisionist has income from landed property and thus has the sufficient means to maintain her. Present criminal revision seems to have been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings and is nothing but a ploy of not paying the maintenance, which the Court had ordered.

9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 wherein the Court has held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to ensure that a woman, who has left or thrown out of matrimonial house, can sustain herself and her children. The Court further held that concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean "to lead the life of an animal", rather the wife would be entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. reported in (AIR 1997 SC 3397 has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 it has held that:- "Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal[15] 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."

12. In view of the averment made above and reasoning advanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to record my concurrence with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the finding returned by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh that it is adverse to the pleadings and evidence, contrarily it is as per pleadings and evidence and therefore needs no interference in the revision.

13. In the result, revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad