Maintenance obligation to minor child is absolute under Section 125 CrPC, irrespective of parental disputes; wife's claim requires evaluating her earning capacity, reason for separate living, and husband's means to avoid his destitution.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the Revisionist, Vineet Sharma, assailing the judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.285 of 2019, titled Monika Dhiman and Another v. Vineet Sharma .

2. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court allowed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the Revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 2 (wife) and Respondent No. 3 (minor child). The Revisionist challenges the legality, correctness, and propriety of the said order on grounds relating to maintainability, appreciation of evidence, earning capacity of the parties, and applicability of (4) CrPC.

3. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 16.11.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the said wedlock, a male child, Respondent No. 3, was born.

4. After marriage, matrimonial discord arose between the parties. The record reflects that in the year 2018, Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In response, the Revisionist instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Subsequently, efforts at reconciliation were made and the parties arrived at a settlement. In pursuance thereof, the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were disposed of, and the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn, with Respondent No. 2 agreeing to resume cohabitation at the matrimonial home.

6. However, on 21.04.2019, Respondent No. 2 once again left the matrimonial home along with the minor child. On the same date, an FIR bearing No. 507 of 2019 was lodged at Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun against the Revisionist and his family members. Since then, the parties have been living separately.

7. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Dehradun, seeking maintenance for herself and for the minor child, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 285 of 2019.

8. The said application was contested by the Revisionist. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, by judgment and order dated 12.07.2024, allowed the application and directed the Revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month towards Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Revisionist has approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and perversity inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record relating to the earning capacity of the parties. It was contended that the Revisionist is earning a meagre income and that the direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 p