Case Note & Summary
This criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, which had directed the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.600 to the respondent/wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The marriage was solemnized on 04.05.1999 and a son was born from the wedlock. The wife filed a maintenance application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, alleging neglect and cruelty by the husband and his family, including a demand for Rs.50,000. The Magistrate partly allowed the application on 06.05.2006, granting maintenance only to the minor son at Rs.500 per month, but rejecting the wife's claim on the ground that she was working as an Anganwadi Madatnis and was able to maintain herself. Aggrieved by this rejection, the wife filed a criminal revision petition, which the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge allowed on 18.12.2006, setting aside the Magistrate's order and directing the husband to pay Rs.600 per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of application, i.e., 27.05.2005, along with costs. The husband then approached the High Court, contending that the wife was gainfully employed as an Anganwadi Madatnis since 2004 and earned enough to sustain herself, while he had limited means—only 30 Guntha of land and did not have sufficient income. He argued that the revisional court erred in overlooking these facts. The wife opposed the petition, asserting that her appointment was temporary, the honorarium was merely Rs.740 per month (later around Rs.2,000), and such meager income did not constitute a regular or permanent source of livelihood sufficient to maintain herself. She relied on the decision in Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna to argue that mere capability of earning is different from actual earning. The High Court framed the sole issue as whether the wife was unable to maintain herself and whether the revisional court's order was justified. After examining the evidence, the Court noted that the wife's name appeared in the appointment order dated 30.06.2004 as Manisha Chandrakant Khandagale (her maiden name), confirming she was appointed as Anganwadi Madatnis on a temporary basis with an honorarium of only Rs.740 per month. The Court emphasized that the post carried no facilities of a government servant and could be terminated at any time, thus it could not be considered a permanent or reliable source of income. Relying on the revisional court's reasoning, which also cited Dnyanoba Kamble v. Mukta Kamble and Ramavtar Sharma v. Santosh, the High Court held that even if the wife earned something, that did not disentitle her to maintenance when the amount was insufficient. The Court also upheld the finding that the husband had sufficient means from his agricultural land and labor work. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the revisional court's order, and held that the wife was unable to maintain herself and entitled to maintenance of Rs.600 per month from the date of application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 - Wife's Ability to Maintain Herself - Temporary Employment and Low Honorarium - The wife was appointed on temporary basis as Anganwadi Madatnis with honorarium of only Rs.740 per month, which the Court found insufficient to deem her able to maintain herself; the Court held that a wife with such meager and insecure income cannot be denied maintenance, and the petitioner/husband having 30 Guntha land and labor income had sufficient means to pay Rs.600 monthly maintenance - Held that the Revisional Court's order awarding maintenance was justified (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent/wife, employed as a temporary Anganwadi Madatnis with honorarium of Rs.740-2000 per month, is unable to maintain herself and the Revisional Court was justified in directing the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance
Final Decision
The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2006 directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.600/- to the respondent/wife from the date of application is confirmed. The court held that the wife is unable to maintain herself and the revisional court was justified in awarding maintenance.
Law Points
- maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- wife's inability to maintain herself
- temporary employment not sufficient income
- honorarium cannot be equated to regular salary
- husband's sufficient means from land and labor work
- revisional court's finding upheld
