Criminal Revision No. 1141 of 2016
——-Ganesh Banra @ Motai Banra, son of Sri Jambira Banra, residentof Village Tonto, PO. & P.S. Muffasil, Town Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.…Petitioner
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Madhuri Samad @ Madhuri Banra wife of Ganesh Banra @Motai Banra, daughter of Sri Mango Samad, resident of VillageBakgai, P.O. Icha, P.S. Rajnagar, District Seraikella-Kharsawan,Jharkhand…Opposite Parties——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR——-
For the Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Moti Gope, A.P.P
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 05 of 2014 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to his wife.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no evidence was led by the petitioner’s wife on income still maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted to her which is excessive and onerous for the petitioner.
3.The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with O.P No. 2 on 18.04.2011. His wife has alleged that after one year of the marriage her husband started harassing and torturing her in connection to demand of rupees One Lac as dowry and finally on 08.04.2013 she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She has lodged a case vide G.R Case No. 640 of 2013 regarding her harassment and torture by her husband. She has asserted that she has no source of income and her husband has neglected to maintain her.
The petitioner has denied the allegations levelled by his wife and claimed that his wife is doing tuition from which she is getting good income. In the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner’s wife has examined two witnesses.
She has claimed that her husband is a teacher in the Central School and getting salary of Rs.42,848/- per month. The petitioner has examined three witnesses and produced a copy of Panchayatnama dated 10.01.2013 in evidence. He has claimed that he is a physical instructor in the Central School and his monthly income is about Rs.15,000/- per month.
4.Previously, against the order of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- granted to his wife he came to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2015 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2015.
5. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and while adjudicating claim of a wife and the minor child for maintenance the courts are required to keep in mind the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of a social and beneficial provision. In“ Vimala (K.) Vs. Veeraswamy (K.) reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375”,the object behind Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been indicated by the Supreme Court in these words :
“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..…
”6. In “Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan” reported in (1999)6 SCC 326, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the expression “unable to maintain herself”, as under :
“7. ……The words “unable to maintain her self” would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after the desertion to survive somehow. Section125 is enacted on the premise that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation and that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain them or any one of them. …
” 7.The learned Judge, Family Court has observed that after examining three witnesses the record was pending for quite a long time, however, the petitioner did not examine himself as a witness and therefore finally his evidence was closed.
His wife has asserted that he is getting salary of Rs.42,848/- per month but to controvert this fact he has not led any evidence. What is his salary is a fact within his knowledge and since he has failed to examine himself as a witness the stand taken by him may not be accepted. He has also failed to lead any evidence on his employment and therefore it can be reasonably inferred that claim of his wife that he is working as a Teacher in the Central School and earning Rs.42,848/- per month is correct.
In the context of income of O.P. No. 2, it needs to be indicated that some earning of the wife is not a ground to refuse maintenance to her.
8.In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that grant of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month considering salary of the petitioner at about 43,000/- per month is not excessive. The petitioner has failed to show by leading evidence that his wife is not entitled for maintenance.
9.In “Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan” reported in(2015) 5 SCC 705, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“14.…….As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one.
As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC,it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Some times, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC,unless disqualified, is an absolute right.”
10.In view of the aforesaid facts and particularly keeping in mind the limitations under the revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder (SMT)” reported in (2003) 11 SCC 303],
I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1141 of 2016 is dismissed.