The court affirmed the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of disclosing income for maintenance determinations.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro), in Original Maintenance Case No. 171/2019 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the applicant-wife-Opposite Party No.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per month to the Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance from the date of filing of the case i.e. from 05.07.2019.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the Opposite Party No.2 was not solemnized as per the rituals and the marriage was not consummated. He further submitted that in the show cause, the petitioner had clearly stated that the applicant has independent source of income and that the petitioner is earning only to the extent of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month and does not have enough source of income to the pay maintenance to the applicant. These aspects of the matter have not been considered properly and therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. He also submitted that the petitioner is at present working in Russia and at the relevant point of time also, he was working in Russia.

3. He further submitted that pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajnesh Vs. Neha" reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party No.2 (applicant), but the said affidavit was not filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order calling for any interference.

5. The facts of the case as per the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are that the applicant/Mrs. Chhoti Parveen is the legally married wife of the petitioner-Md. Sahnawaj. Their marriage was solemnized on 03.05.2017 according to Law at Bokaro and thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife, but no child was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner belongs to upper caste ‘Saiyed’ muslim and the applicant belongs to lower caste ‘Ansari’ muslim. Prior to their marriage, both were living in the same locality and they fell in love with each other and got married on 03.05.2017 before District Marriage Officer, Bokaro. The petitioner is a technocrat and just after the marriage, he went to Russia for his job and used to send money to the applicant in her mother’s bank Account No. 489318210001343 and last payment of Rs.9,497/- was made on 11.12.2018. Since applicant was not taken to her matrimonial home after the marriage, she is residing at her parental house and when the petitioner came back from Russia, she insisted to take her to her matrimonial house, but it was avoided by the petitioner on some or the other pretext. On 22.03.2019, the petitioner took the applicant by his car to a nearby isolated place in a ‘Jungle and tried to make physical relation with her, but she objected and asked the applicant to take her to his house. Thereafter, the petitioner brutally assaulted the applicant and also demanded cash dowry so that his mother could be satisfied and left the applicant in injured and semi-conscious state. Later on, the applicant was taken to her parental house by passersby. She reported the matter to the local police who convened a panchayati where the petitioner alongwith his family members appeared and assured the applicant that she will be taken to her matrimonial house. But as soon as the petitioner came out of the police station, he declined to take the applicant to his house. Thereafter, Bermo Mahila P.S. Case No. 02/2019 dated 22.03.2019 under Sections 498(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered. When the petitioner filed A.B.P. No.68/2019 before the court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bokaro, the matter was referred to Mediation