The absolute right of the wife to maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C, and the legal obligation of the husband to support his wife, even if he claims to have no income, were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Sushil Kumar Palo, J.

1. Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Sarita Kochar, learned counsel for the respondents.

With the consent of both the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.

2. This revision is directed against the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in M.J.C. No. 359/2010 whereby maintenance has been awarded @ Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents No. 2 and 3 (minor daughters).

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jabalpur registered as M.J.C. 359/2010. It is contended by the respondents that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 02.1.1997. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are daughters born due to this wedlock on 21.01.2001 and 12.06.2007 respectively. The respondent No. 1 contended that at the time of her marriage, her father had given Rs. 2,50,000/-, Sofa, T.V and other goods. The respondent was being ill-treated and mal-treated by some pretext or the other. After 6-7 months, they started demanding money. Later, when she did not conceive a child, she was treated with cruelty. When she gave birth to the first baby girl, she was being harassed and insulted. When she was not well, even then she was forced to do the domestic work. After she gave birth to the second girl, she was not allowed to perform the rituals after the baby was born. She was sent back to her maternal home. The respondents claimed that the husband/petitioner is earning Rs. 45,000/- per month by running a `mobile shop’ at Bhopal.

4. It is also claimed that the minor respondent No. 2 is studying at St. Joseph’s Convent School and her tuition fee is Rs. 25,000/- per year. Respondent No. 3 is at Tulips School and her annual school fees is Rs. 20,000/-. Besides, other expenses incur about Rs. 20,000/- per year for each girl. The respondent claimed that she has no income and, therefore, demanded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 6,000/- per month for the respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner made appearance and submitted written statement on 21.09.2010 but subsequently remained absent and, therefore, the learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte. The learned Family Court awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- for respondents No. 2 and 3 each, totalling Rs. 7,000/- per month from the petitioner.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that he filed an application for restore the ex-parte order but the same was rejected subsequently on filing a revision, the same was also not allowed. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner has no income. He is only assisting his Senior Advocate and he has less income. Because the learned Family Court proceeded ex parte, no evidence could be adduced by him in this regard. It is claimed that the maintenance awarded is excessive and the same be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the award of maintenance was in the year 2011 and the cost of education expenses have rise to many fold. It is claimed that the petitioner is not only having a mobile shop at Bhopal but also earns by practising advocacy claiming that the minor respondents are living with her and their expenses has become very high for they are undergoing schooling in the convent schools.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that this revision has no substance and, therefore, be dismissed.

8. In the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, 2015 CRI.L.J. 2551, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that maintenance under Section 125 is the absolute right of wife. The same cannot be defeated on pleas that husband does not have means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. If husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to suppo