IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy of deserted wives and children.

ORDER ON BOARD :

Heard.

1. The present revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act is directed against the order dated 29.08.2011 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.13/2010 by the learned Family Court (Camp Court – Baikunthpur), Dist. Korea (CG) whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- has been dismissed by the learned Family Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that prior to eight-nine years before presentation of application, she was married to the respondent as per Hindu rituals and custom. After marriage, the appellant joined the company of the respondent and started living her marital life and after a few days, the respondent started hating her and beating her and ultimately ousted her out of his house, then the appellant came to his material village Matijhariya and on 07.04.2009, her brother and other villagers accompanied by Sarpanch went to his house and tried to reach a settlement, but no such settlement could not be done between them. It is also pleaded by her that the respondent again abused her and was threatening her to kill and thrown her of the house. It is further pleaded by her that after ousting her from his house, the respondent did not take any information of her nor any kind of maintenance did provide her. Physically, the appellant is a weak woman and is unable to support herself whereas the respondent is a healthy person, who used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and despite that the respondent did not provide her even single penny for her maintenance. Therefore, the appellant is compelled to file this application seeking maintenance from the respondent.

3. By filing written statement, the respondent denied the averments made by the appellant. It has been specifically denied by him that the appellant is not legally wedded wife and in fact, his wife is Mankunwar, with whom his marriage was solemnised. It has further been categorically pleaded that the appellant used to visit her sister’s house at village Karhiyakhand, during which period, she stayed at the house of the respondent for a few days and on the basis of this, she made a false complaint under section 498-A of IPC. It has also been pleaded by him that the appellant is a healthy woman and she is able to maintain herself whereas he used to earn Rs.1,500/- - 1,600/- per month by doing as labour work and he is maintaining his wife Mankunwar and his children and parents. On the basis of above pleadings, the respondent urged that the application filed by the appellant be liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned Family Court, after appreciation of evidence, held the appellant legally wedded wife of the respondent; that the appellant is living separately from the respondent with proper and sufficient reasons and the appellant is capable of maintaining herself and ultimately dismissed the application of the appellant. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and the respondent used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month, which was corroborated by the other evidence of the witnesses brought by the appellant before the learned Family Court and the learned Family Court has also observed in para 15 of its impugned order that since statements of the appellant and her witnesses have not been rebutted nor have been challenged by the respondent with respect to his earning, the finding thereof has attained finality. He also submits that though the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, but even if it is presumed that the appellant is working as labourer for few days in a month, then also the respondent husband cannot escape from maintaining his wife. On these premises, he urged that the impugned order may be set aside and sufficient amount may be fix