The court held that an applicant's sufficient income and educational background can negate entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.92/2021, whereby the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant herein.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance, stating therein that she is legally married wife of the non- applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 09.02.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, she went to the house of non- applicant for performing matrimonial obligations, but the non-applicant subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and ultimately the non-applicant ousted her from the matrimonial house, therefore she is living separately in her parental house. It was further specifically contended by the applicant that the non-applicant is working as Medical Officer and thereby getting monthly income and he is also practicing in his personal clinic, whereas the applicant is suffering from disease and ill-health, due to which, she is unable to maintain her.

3. After serving notice, the non-applicant filed reply, whereby denied the allegations and submitted that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance and the application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 04.10.2024 the learned Family Court has dismissed the application by holding that the applicant is working as Teacher and she is getting monthly salary, thereby she is able to maintain herself. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, being perverse and erroneous, hence liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is working as Medical Officer and thereby getting monthly income and he is also practicing in his personal clinic, whereas the applicant is suffering from disease and ill-health, due to which, she is unable to maintain her. He further contended that the applicant has applied under RTI Act for supply of documents relating to salary of the non-applicant, but the Public Information Officer of the Office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, has refused to supply the information to the applicant. The learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant has not produced any documents regarding service of non-applicant, whereas the applicant has made her best efforts to get the document relating to service of non-applicant, but she could not obtain the same. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure A/1) and allow maintenance in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection.

7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of CrPC on the ground that applicants’ standard of life and economical background are almost the same to the respondent. The applicant is highly educated and is on the post of Teacher Class-II. Similarly, the non-applicant is also an Ayurvedic Doctor, but in this case, the situation is not such that the standard of living and living of the applicant is lower than that of the non-applicant, which should be br