IMPORTANT POINT
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, irrespective of the divorce circumstances, affirming the husband's financial responsibility.

ORDER :

V. Srinivas, J.

The present Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner/husband against the judgment dated 08.08.2008 in F.C.O.P.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the learned Family Court, Nellore, wherein the learned judge granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent, under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file this revision as pleaded by the respondent/husband are that:

The petitioner and 1st respondent are husband and wife. At the time of marriage, parents of the 1st respondent gave Rs.1,00,000/- of gold and 13 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner/husband. Petitioner/husband used to harass the 1st respondent/wife by beating her with an intention to marry another woman as second marriage. Unable to bear his harassment, the 1st respondent/wife made a complaint and the same was taken in Crime No.83 of 2001 registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as F.C.O.P.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the learned Family Court, Nellore.

4. After full-fledged enquiry, the Family Court, Nellore, vide order dated 08.08.2008, had allowed the F.C.O.P. by granting to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent from the date of the filing of that said petition.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

6. Heard Sri P.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel representing Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent-State.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Court below?”

8. Sri P.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, submits that the Court below ought to have seen that admittedly the Respondent No.1 was a divorcee and the divorce has been granted at the instance of the Respondent No.1 only in O.P.No.52 of 2001. He further submits that the Family Court ought to have seen that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner/husband has no means to pay the maintenance as he does not have any properties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that since the petitioner/husband and 1st respondent/wife are living separately and the divorce has been granted at the instance of 1st respondent only and hence, the 1st respondent is not entitled for any maintenance.

10. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Santosh Hegde Vs. B.P. Singh J, AIR 2003 SC 3174 and requests this Court to allow this Criminal Revision Case.

11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Court below rightly granted the maintenance by considering all material on record. He further submits that as per the Hon’ble Apex Court, a wife against whom a decree for divorce has been passed on account of her deserting the husband, can claim maintenance.

12. To support his contention, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied on Manoj Kumar Vs. Champa Devi, (2018) 12 SCC 748 and hence, he requests this Court to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

13. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties as spouses, birth of male child and now they lived separately.

14. It is needless to say that the necessity for a husband to maintain his wife is rooted in the concept of financial support and responsibility towards one’s spouse. In many cultures and legal syst