Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Uttam s/o Kisan Pawar (the applicant/husband) against the judgment and order dated 6th February 2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. A-721/1999. The Family Court had partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents (wife Babita and their two minor sons Santosh and Mahesh) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 to the wife and Rs. 250 each to the minor children from December 1999 onwards. The applicant, a rickshaw driver, challenged this order on the grounds that the wife was not unable to maintain herself, that she had voluntarily withdrawn from his company, and that he had to support his aged parents. The High Court heard arguments from the applicant's counsel and the State's counsel, noting that the respondents were served but unrepresented. The court observed that the Family Court had passed a common judgment in three connected petitions: Petition No. A-405/99 (for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband), Petition No. D-56/99 (for custody of minor children by the husband), and Petition No. E-721/99 (for maintenance by the wife and children). The evidence was recorded commonly. The High Court found that the applicant failed to produce any evidence to show that the wife was able to maintain herself or that she had withdrawn from his company without sufficient reason. The court also noted that the applicant did not provide evidence of his income or his inability to pay maintenance due to other liabilities. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Family Court's order for maintenance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Wife's Entitlement - The court considered whether the wife's withdrawal from the husband's company without sufficient reason disentitles her to maintenance. The husband failed to prove that the wife was unable to maintain herself or that she voluntarily withdrew without cause. Held that the Family Court's order granting maintenance was justified (Paras 3-6). B) Family Law - Maintenance - Burden of Proof - Section 125 CrPC - The husband contended that the wife was able to maintain herself and that he had to support aged parents. The court noted that the husband did not produce evidence of his income or inability to pay. Held that the burden lies on the husband to show his incapacity, which he failed to discharge (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance to the wife and minor children under Section 125 CrPC, and whether the wife's withdrawal from the husband's company disentitles her to maintenance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the Family Court's order granting maintenance to the wife and minor children.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- wife's entitlement despite withdrawal from company
- burden of proof on husband to show wife's ability to maintain herself
- consideration of husband's income and liabilities
