A beggar cannot be compelled to provide maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even in a polygamous context, highlighting the intersection of criminal law and customary marriage obligations.

ORDER :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. ‘Jubairiya’ filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C .) against ‘Saidalavi N.’ who is her husband, claiming maintenance. Saidalavi is a blind man. According to ‘Jubairiya’, ‘Saidalavi’ survives by begging and she seeks a share of the income that her husband earns from begging. There is a Malayalam phrase that says,, which means: “Don’t put your hand into a begging bowl”. But, it is to be remembered that ‘Saidalavi’ is also not a saint. Even though he is blind and a beggar, as stated by ‘Jubairiya’ who is his second wife, (his first wife is also alive) ‘Saidalavi’ has been threatening Jubairiya that he will soon enter into a third marriage with another lady. I do not want to make any further observations about the same at this stage.

2. The Family Court, as per the impugned order, rejected the claim of ‘Jubairiya’ for maintenance from ‘Saidalavi' and they are the revision petitioner and respondent in this revision. Aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to her, ‘Jubairiya’ filed this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. This Court perused the petition filed by the revision petitioner before the Family Court. In Column No. 10 of the petition filed under Section 125 CrPC, it is clearly stated that the respondent is getting income by begging on Fridays in front of the mosque. It is also stated in it that the respondent is a blind man. He is paying the electricity and water bills of others and earning some income on that count as well. It is stated that the respondent is receiving Rs. 25,000/- from various sources, including begging, and therefore, the petitioner requires Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance.

5. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit before the family court denying the averments in the petition. But he admits that he is blind and his livelihood is the income from begging and the helping hands of his neighbours. After filing the counter, the respondent did not appear. Therefore, the Family Court set the respondent as ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a chief affidavit. After going through the same, the Family Court found that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance because a beggar cannot be directed to pay maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

6. This Court called for the Trial Court Records and perused the same. According to the petitioner, when the respondent married the petitioner, it was his second marriage. There is cruelty on the side of the respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent threatened to pronounce Talaq on the petitioner, and he wishes to marry again. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is also her second marriage to the respondent.

7. As mentioned by the Family Court, no court can direct a beggar to pay maintenance to his wife when the wife admits that her husband is a beggar. Admittedly, the petitioner married the respondent knowing fully well that he is blind, he has no income, and one of his sources of income is begging. I cannot digest the contention of the petitioner that the blind man is assaulting the petitioner, and therefore, she is living separately. How a blind man can assault a wife who is not blind is thought-provoking. The cruelty may be in different ways, like mental, physical, etc. However, the petitioner contends that the respondent assaults her whenever he visits the petitioner's house. As I mentioned earlier, a blind man assaulting a lady who is not blind will not usually happen unless she surrende