1. When the matter is called out for hearing, none appears for the applicant. Therefore, it clearly appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in the absence of the applicant based on available material on record.

2. By way of the present application, the applicant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.41 of 2021.

3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant and respondent No. 2 were married on 21.07.2017 as per Muslim Shariyat rituals at Jamnagar. After the marriage, the respondent No. 2 started residing at the matrimonial home with the applicant at Solapur, Maharashtra, where the applicant was living along with his sons and their families from his first marriage. In January 2018, the respondent No. 2, allegedly due to disputes with the family members and other issues, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started residing separately. Thereafter, the applicant made several efforts to bring her back and also attempted to resolve the disputes amicably, including through mediation, but the respondent No. 2 did not return and raised demands which, according to the applicant, were unreasonable. Subsequently, on 18.02.2021, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2021 before the learned Family Court at Jamnagar seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the applicant also initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Solapur in April 2021. Ultimately, the learned Family Court, Jamnagar, vide order dated 21.04.2022, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent No. 2, which is under challenge in the present proceedings.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. It is submitted in the Revision Application that the learned Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order without properly appreciating the material on record, inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 has failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence in support of her claim for maintenance, particularly with regard to her income. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has not approached the Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts including her income, status, and foreign travel details. The learned advocate further contends that the Trial Court has failed to consider the mandate of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance if she, without sufficient reason, refuses to reside with her husband, and in the present case, despite repeated efforts made by the applicant, the respondent No. 2 has refused to return to the matrimonial home. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 has shown disregard to the judicial process by avoiding service of summons in the restitution proceedings initiated by the applicant. The learned advocate further submits that the application for maintenance is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, aimed at enrichment rather than necessity, which would result in serious prejudice to the applicant, who is already burdened with financial and medical constraints. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order solely on the assertions of the respondent No. 2, ignoring the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. After perusing the record, it appears that the present revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that the wife is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month; however, no cogent evidence has been produced on record to substantiate the said contention, and mere bald assertions are not sufficient. The learned Family Judge has duly considered this aspect and rightly observed that even if the wife is earning something due to exigency or separation, it does not necessarily mean that she is in a position to maintain herself or live a life with dignity. Such temporary or insufficient earnings do not absolve the husband of his legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife. The learned Family Judge has, therefore, properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record, and no error can be said to have been committed in passing the impugned order.

7. It also appears that the learned Family Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly concluded that the husband has suppressed his true income. The Income Tax Return for the year 2019-20 produced on record reflects the annual income of the present applicant at Rs. 18,72,564/-, which comes to approximately Rs. 1,56,000/- per month. At present, the applicant is a pensioner earning about Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per month, and is also engaged in the profession of conducting tuition classes. Merely because the respondent No. 2-wife is engaged in some private work to sustain herself with dignity, it cannot be said that her income is sufficient for her maintenance. Considering the income of the applicant along with his liabilities, the learned Family Judge has awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance, which appears to be just, reasonable, and proper, and does not warrant any interference.

8. It further appears that, while in service, the applicant was earning approximately Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. Though the applicant has attempted to contend that the respondent No. 2 is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, no cogent evidence has been produced on record to substantiate the same. On the contrary, it emerges from the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 that while residing with the applicant, she was earning about Rs. 2,000/- from tuition, and thereafter, from a private job, she was earning around Rs. 10,000/- per month, which she subsequently left. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that she is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, the said amount is meagre and insufficient for her maintenance. Therefore, the bar under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted in the facts of the present case.

9. The learned Family Judge has thus properly appreciated the evidence on record, particularly the fact that the respondent No. 2 has been neglected and is living separately, and therefore, the findings recorded do not call for any interference. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2025, wherein it has been held as under:

          14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs.17,654/-.

          15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-.

          In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors.[13] has held as follows:-

          "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

          16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai[14], it has been ruled that:-

          "Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal[15] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat[16]."

          This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

          19. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. As is manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no revisional court should have interfered with the reason on the base that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order."

10. Considering the contents of the application as well as the conclusions of the learned court, it is evident that the wife is unable to maintain herself and has been neglected by her husband. Furthermore, it is important to note that the mere fact that the wife is earning or she is able to maintain herself is not a valid ground to reject her claim for maintenance. In this regard, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715. In that case, the wife, who was living separately, sought maintenance from her husband. The husband objected on the ground that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself, but this argument was rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was held that merely because the wife is earning and may be highly qualified cannot be a reason to deny her claim for maintenance. The relevant observation made in paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced as follows:

          "Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only with the help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good and the wife was entitled to maintenance."

11. From the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as learned High Court, it can be said that the husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children because it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father to maintain his legally wedded wife and children, which is his social and lawful duty towards them and the wife and children would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were enjoying while living with them. In this regard reference is required to be made in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 353.

12. Further, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas, passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7660 of 2017), and Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, reported in (2004) SCC OnLine SC 1686, wherein the Court held as under:

          "43. In this context, I would like to advert to the vulnerability of married women in India who do not have an independent source of income or who do not have access to monetary resources in their households particularly for their personal expenses. In Indian society, it is an established practice that once a daughter is married, she resides with her husband and/or his family unless due to exigency of career or such other reason she has to reside elsewhere. In the case of a woman who has an independent source of income, she may be financially endowed and may not be totally dependent on her husband and his family. But what is the position of a married woman who is often referred to as a "homemaker" and who does not have an independent source of income, whatsoever, and is totally dependent for her financial resources on her husband and on his family? It is well-known that such an Indian homemaker tries to save as much money as possible from the monthly household budget, not only to augment the financial resources of the family but possibly to also save a small portion for her personal expenses. Such a practice is followed in order to avoid making a request to the husband or his family for her personal expenses. Most married men in India do not realise this aspect of the predicament such Indian homemakers face as any request made for expenses may be bluntly turned down by the husband and/or his family. Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife who has no independent source of finance is dependent on them not only emotionally but also financially. On the other hand, a wife who is referred to as a homemaker is working throughout the day for the welfare of the family without expecting anything in return except possibly love and affection, a sense of comfort and respect from her husband and his family which are towards her emotional security. This may also be lacking in certain households.

          44. XXX

          45. Therefore, I observe that an Indian married man must become conscious of the fact that he would have to financially empower and provide for his wife, who does not have an independent source of income, by making available financial resources particularly towards her personal needs; in other words, giving access to his financial resources. Such financial empowerment would place such a vulnerable wife in a more secure position in the family. Those Indian married men who are conscious of this aspect and who make available their financial resources for their spouse towards their personal expenses, apart from household expenditure, possibly by having a joint bank account or via an ATM card, must be acknowledged."

13. In the light of above it appears that the applicant has failed to point out any patent error in the impugned order or any miscarriage of justice. The family Court has assigned proper reasons while passing the impugned order and therefore no case is made out for interference with the concurrent findings. The application fails to satisfy the test for exercising revisional jurisdiction in light of the scope of revision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, 2012 (9) SCC 460.

14. Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.