IMPORTANT POINT
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and children is not negated by claims of financial constraints, and maintenance laws are enacted for social justice to prevent dependents from falling into destitution.

JUDGMENT :

SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Chandan Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 657 of 2018 (Neetu Singh and Others vs. Rana Pratap Singh) filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has allowed the criminal case instituted by the opposite party no. 1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 (wife) and Rs. 5000/- each to her children i.e. opposite party no. 2, Keerti Singh, and opposite party no. 3, Krishna Singh from the date of filing of the criminal case. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were provided maintenance till they attain the age of majority.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial Court has passed the impugned order against the weight of evidence on record as well as law applicable to the facts of the case. The trial court has misread and misinterpreted the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. The trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that without any fault of the revisionist, the opposite party no. 1 was residing away from him. It has also been submitted that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the concerned Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party no. 1 still she failed to live with the revisionist and perform her matrimonial duties, therefore her rights to maintenance allowance against the revisionist is barred under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that while determining the amount of maintenance allowance, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the monthly income of the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the following judgments of the different High Courts:

(i) Amit Kumar Kachhap vs. Sangeeta Toppo in Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2023 (Ranchi High Court)

(ii) Balaram Dash vs. Smt. Gitanjali Dash and Others, 2000 Cri. L.J. 4175

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and it should not be interfered with. It has also been submitted that the revisionist is a central government employee and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 83,910/- per month in the year 2020 as it is mentioned in the trial court order. Now his salary has increased from that amount. It has also been submitted that the parents of opposite party no. 1 are bearing expenses of opposite party nos. 1 to 3. The opposite party no. 2, Keerti Singh, is studying in Class 7th, whose annual fees is Rs. 37,700/- whereas opposite party no. 3, Krishna Singh, is studying in Class 5th and his annual fees is Rs. 35,800/- their expenses for books stationary and transportation is in addition to this amount. The opposite party no. 1 has filed receipt of fees of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 with her counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

7. The opposite party no. 1 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that the opposite party No. 1, Neetu Singh, had married to the revisionist, Rana Pratap Singh on 26.02.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and from their wedlock, opposite party no. 2 and 3 were born. In the said marriage, father of the opposite party no. 1 had given gifts and cash as per his capacity. The revisionist/husband and her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given to them in the marriage, they started beating her and subjected her to physical and mental harassment for coercing