A wife living separately without valid reasons is not entitled to maintenance, while a minor child is entitled without justification.

Order on Board

03.07.2025

1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.126/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and rejected grant of maintenance to applicant No.1 and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to applicant No.2.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applicants have presented an application under section 125 Cr.P.C . for grant of maintenance amounting Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- each) per month to the applicants. The respondent presented his reply to the application. After taking evidence of both the parties and after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both the parties the learned Family Court by its impugned order dated 10-05-2018 dismissed the claim of applicant No.1 and partly allowed the claim of the applicant No.2. and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.1000/- only to applicant No.2. Hence, this revision

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 10-05-2018 passed by the learned Family Court of not granting the maintenance to applicant No.1 is bad, erroneous and contrary to the facts and Law. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the non-applicant is the husband of applicant No.1 and it is his duty to give maintenance to his wife, if she is unable to maintain herself and also ought to have considered the fact that the maintenance ought to have been awarded looking to the income of the Non-applicant as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the amount awarded to the applicant No.2 is too less looking to the income of the non- applicant and the applicants are entitled for the maintenance as she is not having income of her own and the non-applicant is duty bound for maintenance of the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C . filed by the applicants and has rejected grant of maintenance to the applicant No.1 observing that she is living separately from the respondent in her maternal house without any sufficient and reasonable reason, in such circumstances she is not eligible to get maintenance amount from the non-applicant and further granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to applicant No.2 observing that she is a minor daughter and is living with her mother, it is not necessary for the said child to prove why she is living separately from her father.

7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed