Section 125 of Cr.P.C. mandates maintenance to protect the dignity and rights of women and children abandoned by husbands.

ORDER

This revision was continuously posted before this Court on

14.07.2025, 25.07.2025, and today (06.08.2025). There is no representation for the petitioner. The impugned order is an order passed by the family court granting maintenance to the respondents. This Court perused the impugned order. As per the impugned order, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents @ Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

2. After going through the impugned order, I see no reason to interfere with the same. The marriage and paternity are not disputed. The quantum of maintenance is also not excessive.

3. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women who are abandoned by their husbands. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [ 2014 KHC 4455 ], the Apex Court held as follows:

"3. Be it ingeminated that S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."

4. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [ 1978 KHC 607 ] the Apex Court observed like this:

"9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art.15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to the selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause – the cause of the derelicts."

5. In Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha [ 2014 KHC 4690 ] the Apex Court observed like this:

" 8. The proceeding under S.125 CrPC is summary in nature. In a proceeding under S.125 CrPC, it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was