^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kuniar Sinha, J. Crimiaal Revision No. 148 of 2006 Hemd^tt Tiwari 'i-f-. -Vs. Smt. Savita-i Tiwari & (Connected Cr.Rev. No. 494 of 2008) ORDER Post for Order:/^-/09/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \;. ^-^^^.•s^^^t^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Single Bench: Iton'ble Shri Sunil Kutnar Sinha, J. Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2006 Revision Petitioner Applicant Hemdutt Tiwari, aged about 67 .years, S/o Late Shri Bhuneshwar Prasad Tiwari, Occupation - Retired Employee, Resident of Vill. Saja, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (wrgngly written in application u/^i 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent as resident of H.No. 97, Nagar Nigam Colony, Bhainsthan, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondent Non-Applicant Smt. Savitri Tiwari W/o Shri Hemdutt Tiwari, aged about 55 years, R/o Ganga Munda Ward, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) (wrongly written in application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as resident of C/o Shri Mukesh Sharma, Shikshak Colony, Dangania, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) And Cnminal Revision No. 494 of 2008 Revisionist Non-Applicant Shri Hemdutt Tiwari, 70 yrs., S/o Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Tiwari, H.No. 23, Sunder Nagar, PS DD Nagar, Raipur Versus \;. Respondent Smt. Savita-i Tiwari, 56 yrs., W/o Applicant Shri Hemdatt Tiwari, By: Shri Mukesh . Sharma, Preminkunj ; Bhavan, "Shikshak Colony, Behmd Dr. Sarbhai Hospital, Daiiganiya, Raipur (Revision Petitions under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984) Criminal RevisionNos. 148 of2006 & 494 of2008 Appearance: Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate for the applicant in Cr.Rev. No. 148/2006. \ Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the applicant in Cr.Rev. No. 494/2008. Mrs. Hameeda Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondent in both the revision petitions. ORDER (14-09.2011) <!' (1) Since these 2 revision ^etitions arise out of the orders passed u/ss 125 & 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this cominon order. (2) Both the revision petitions have been filed by the husband (applicant). Criininal Revision No. 148/2006 has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 687/2005 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby Rs.1,000/- per month has been awarded as monthly niaintenance to the respondent u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No. 494/2008 has been ffled against the order dated 17.6.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 167/2008 by the same Family Court, whereby Rs.1,000/- per month earlier awarded to the respondent u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month u/s 127 Cr.P.C. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The respondent is legally married wife of the applicant. She filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the /!' ^•\ ..'"'? ••^LI^fiS lllll. ,</- /i Criminal Revision Nos. 148 of 2006 & 494 of 2008 applicant for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. This application was filed on 26.7.2005. The respondent pleaded that she ^ras deserted by the applicant since the year 1969; the applicant had married another lad\' nan'iely- Usha Tiwari in the year 1974; she is unable to maintain herself and the applicant is not maintaining her; the applicant is a pensioner getting pension of Rs.4,000/- per month; he has other soiu-ces of income also; therffore, she be awarded monthly m^ntenance of Rs.10,000/- from the applicant. This applicat'ibn was contested by the applicant herein who denied the contentions of the respondent. The respondent examined herself as AW-1 and she also examined her daughter- Chandraprabha as AW-2 iiisupport of her contentions. The applicant examined himsell as NAW- 1. The learned Judge, Family Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, held that the respondent was entitled to get maintenance ofRs.1,000/- per month as she had reasons to live separately from the applicant and she was iinable to maintain herself. Thus, the above order was passed in Misc. Case No. 687/2005 on 4.2.2006. Thereafter on 18.3.2008, the respondent filed an application u/s 127 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for enhancing ofthe amount of maintenancc claiming that a sum 6f Rs.5,000/- per month now be awarded to her. This application was also contested by the applicant. During the inquiry, the respondent examined herself as AW-1 and again Chandraprabha was examined as AW-2. Applicant- Hemdutt examined himself as NAW-1. The leamf'd Judge, Family Court, on due appreciation of the entire material; found that the am.ount of Rs.1,000/- per month should be enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month, and thus, by order dated 17.6.2008, it yvsis' directed thaf the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,.000/- per month to the respondent from the date offiling of the appfication i.e. 18.3.2008. ?'ir?';[;Si-ii)^is^Kii^.ii'*a<> : ^.irste^ fj|"'[i41 , ~% !!! :1 'F !'4 .'•! \/ Scsit'aa, •' % :lsiBiial>Si, C .^.P" ,(.n ^!^ '<^.;;^B;)" ^ Criminal Revision Nos. 148 of2006 & 494 of 2008 (4) Mr. Ayaz Naved, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appUcant in Cr.Rev. No. 1'48/2006, argued that the order of grant of monthly maintenance is not in accordance with law. It was not established that the respondent was unable to mamtain herself. The respondent had sufficient means to maintain herself, therefore, the impugned order dated 4.2.2006 passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. be set-aside. ''•f- ,.':; (5) Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in subsequent revision petition, argued that there is no ground for enhancement of quantum of maintenance u/s 127 Cr.P.C.; the applieant is a retired employee of Municipal Corporation; he is a pensioner and he is getting a pension of Rs.4,000/-; therefore, the learned Judge, Farnily Court, would not have enhanced the amount of maintenance in the above manner. (6) On the other hand, Mrs. Hameeda Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, supported the orders passed by the Pamily Court. She also took me to the evidence of the applicant in which he has admitted various facts including his pension as Rs.4,000/- on the date of recording of his evidence i.e. ^. 10.6.2008. She also drew my attention towards the additional documents filed by her in which the pension of the applicant has now been increased to Rs.9,176/-. (7) I have heard leamed eounsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Family Court. '^~~":':l:'.^r^r^T^'r.'-^-^1v^^f--~^'^ >'f BS ^ Criminal RevisionNos. 148 of2006 & 494 of2008 (8) It is notin dispute that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is also established that the applicant has kept \ one Usha Tiwari as his wife and there is a son borne oi.it of their relations. The applicant in his evidence in the second proceeding himself deposed that he .was a retired employee-and W;LS getting pension of Rs.4,000/- per month. This was his evidence on 10.6.2008. In the earlier proc,eedings also he had admittc'd that he was getting pension of Rs.3,500/- per month. In the subsequent proceedings, he furfher admitted in the evidence that he had sold his one house for consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and he had landed property in village Barga, which he had sold. He further admitted in the last sehtence of his cross-exarnination that he had purchased a house in Sundar Nagar paying price of Rs.20,00,000/-. (9) Mr. Raja Sharma, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, drew my attention towards the evidence of respondent in the second matter in which the respondent admitted that she was residing in Jagdalpur and five rented premises wen; there in the house in which she was residing and she was also getting rent of those premises. The entire evidence of the respondent would show that after the desertion she went to her parents anrl she was residing in her pareht's house. Thereafter her father died and she was residing with h-er mother in the 'said house and entire family was dependent on the rent of fhe house of the father On this evidence alone, it was not possible to hold that the respondent /\ r .E^^h-S^ ^;..,.--;1^^ ~t l"&E?"?BSfe' 3 "i6"-'"1""'' '^ ^ . "^.^y '^^wie^" ii : 1 ^\ Criminal RevisionNos. 148 of 2006 & 494 of2008 was not unable to maintain herself or she was not entitled to get mauitenance. It appears to be a case in which the applicant \ having sufficient raeans had refused to raaintain the respondent who was unable to maintain herself and in the above facts and circiimstances, the Family Court, firstly awarded the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- on 4.2.2006 and thereafter on the application filed by the respondent u/s 127 gr.P.C. it further made alteration in w the amount of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- by enhancing it to Rs.2,000/- per month. (10) The provisions of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to fulfill a social purpose. The object ofthe Legislature is to compel a person to perform the moral obligation which he owes to Society in respect of his defined relations under the provisions of this Chapter. Leaving apart the elaborate process of civil law, the legislative intent is to provide a summary and speedy remedy for Iknited reliefs to the wife, children or the parents, as the case may be, to ensure that they are not neglected and left destituted so as to reach to the verge of starvation and to enter into immorality and crime to secure atleast their survival and subsistence. <;. (11) The provisions of seetion 125 of Cr.P.C. are enacted for social justice and especially to protect-the women and children as also fhe old and. infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep ofAsticle 15 (3) reinforced byArticle 39 ofthe \Constitutioo. The provision ^ives effect to natural and -3^is^^T' ^ i'-.'.e + '-^ Crimmal RevisionNos. 148 of2006 & 494 of2008 fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to raaintain themselves. Please \ see (2005L3 SCC^Pg. 636 at Pg. 64^(Savntaben Somabhai Bhatiya -Vs- State of Gwrat and others). (12) On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances ofthe case, i.e., the grounds taken by the respondent for claiming maintenance u/s 125 Cr.R.'C.; the evidence led to support those grounds as also the grounds taken for alteration of the maintenance and "fhe material put in the evidence for alteration, I do not find any infirmity in the above 2 orders passed by the FamUy Court, whereby it firstly awarded Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the aforesaid amount was altered to Rs.2,000/- per month in the changed facts and circumstances of the case. (13) The revision petitions, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. g^y^ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti '<•; ^•^T^^'n^-"11'"'"'