Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is an obligation of the husband to ensure dignity and sustenance for wives and children, emphasizing the social justice perspective.

ORDER

This revision is filed against the order dated 23.10.2018 in MC No.161/2015 on the files of the Family Court. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the wife and child @ Rs.4,500/ & Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive. The counsel submitted that, even as per the Family Court, the petitioner is only a supplier in a hotel and is only getting an income of Rs.500/-.

4. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner.

The marriage and paternity are not disputed. As far as the case of the 1^st respondent is concerned, she is living separately because of the cruelty from the side of the petitioner, which is accepted by the Family Court. The evidence of PW1 is to the effect that, the petitioner would pick up quarrel after intoxication. No wife will desert her husband unless there are sufÏcient reasons. I am of the considered opinion that, the 1^st respondent is living separately for sufÏcient reasons and there is nothing to interfere with the same, as ordered by the Family Court. As far as the maintenance is concerned, only an amount of Rs.4,500/- & Rs.3,000/- is granted. As I mentioned earlier, the marriage and paternity are not disputed. The child was aged six years at the time of filing the claim petition. Probably, he might have attained 16 years of age now. The petitioner needs to pay maintenance to the child only till he attains majority. But as far as the impugned order is concerned, I see no reason to interfere with the same.

5. 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."

6. InRamesh 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) reinforc