A husband has a statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, irrespective of separation claims.

ORDER

The revision petition is filed challenging the order in M.C.No.179/2015 of the Family Court, Nedumangad, directing the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.6,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to the respondents – wife and son - from the date of petition (26.05.2015). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court.

Brief facts

2. The respondents had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, “Code') inter-alia, asserting that the 1st respondent was married to the revision petitioner on 08.07.2011 and the 2nd respondent was born in their wedlock. The revision petitioner deserted the respondents since 22.09.2012. The respondents do not have any means to maintain themselves. The revision petitioner is working in the Indian Air Force as a Civilian and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. He is also getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- from other sources. The respondents are entitled to maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, respectively, from the revision petitioner. Hence, the application.

3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He contended that the 1st respondent is employed and is living separately without sufficient cause. Moreover, the revision petitioner was only drawing a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

4. The 1st respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked through them in evidence.

5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents at Rs.6,000/-

and Rs.1,000/-, respectively.

6. It is assailing the said order; the present revision petition is filed.

7. Heard; Sri.Sreekanth S. Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Although notice has been served on the respondents, there is no appearance for them.

8. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the 1st respondent and the paternity of the 2nd respondent.

9. The respondents case was that although the revision petitioner is employed in the Indian Air Force and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- and getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- from other sources, he has willfully refused to maintain them. The respondents have no source of income. Hence, they are entitled to maintain @ Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.

10. The revision petitioner's defence was that the 1st respondent was living separately from him without any sufficient cause, the 1st respondent is well employed and he is drawing only Rs.12,000/- per month.

11. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973 (‘Code’ for short), was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women and children, who are constrained to leave the matrimonial home for the reasons provided in Chapter IX of the Code, so that suitable arrangements can be made by the Courts to sustain them in their life ahead.

12. It is trite law that an able bodied person is statutorily bound to maintain his wife and children. [Read Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805]].

13. Indisputably, the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to resume cohabitation with the 1st respondent or has he filed a petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The revision petitioner has himself produced his pay slip (Ext.R1), which shows he is drawing a monthly income of Rs.18,988/-.

14. On an anxious consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, particularly Ext.R1 salary slip which shows that the revision petitioner is well employed in the Indian Air Force and drawing a salary nearly of Rs.19,000/- and that there is no evidence to the contrary to prove that the 1st respondent is employed or living separately without