CHATURBHUJ versus SITA BAI

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 27-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
CHATURBHUJ 
v. 
SITA BAI 
NOVEMBER 27, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDAFTABALAM,JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s.125-Claim for maintenance by wife-Wife not having c 
sufficient means to maintain herself and husband having sufficient 
means-Order of maintenance by Courts below after analyzing 
evidence-Interference with-Held: Conclusion of courts below that 
wife was unable to maintain herself was essentially factual and not 
perverse-Thus, inte1ference not called for-Constitution of India- D 
Article 136. 
s.125-Maintenance proceedings-Object of-Held: s.125 is a 
measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women, children 
and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves, and falls 
within constitutional sweep of Article 12(3) reinforced by Article 39 E 
of the Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 15(3) and 
39-Socialjustice. 
Words and phrases: "unable to maintain herself'-Meaning a/-
Jn the context of s.125 of Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
The respondent-wife filed an application under s.125 Cr.P.C. 
claiming Rs.10,000/- as maintenance from the appellant-husband. In the 
application, it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to 
maintain herself. 
The stand of the appellant was thatthe wife was living in the house 
constructed by him; that she had let out the house on rent and since 
1979 was residing with one of their sons; that the wife had sold the 
577 
F 
G 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A agricultural land and sale proceeds were still with her; and that she could 
maintain herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural 
land and rent 
Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court directed 
B husband to pay Rs.1500 per month opining that the wife did not have 
sufficient means to maintain herself. The revisional Court analysed the 
evidence and dismissed the revision petition holding that the appellant's 
monthly income was more than Rs.10,000/- and the amount received 
as rent by the respondent-wife was not sufficient to maintain herself. 
C 
Appellant ftled an application under s.482 Cr.P.C. before the High 
D 
Court The High Court dismissed the application holding that the 
conclusions by the trial Court and the Revisional Court were arrived at 
on appreciation of evidence and therefore there was no scope for any 
interference. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to 
punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by 
E compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to 
support themselves and who have a moral claim to support The phrase 
"unable to maintain herself' would mean that means available to the 
deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take 
within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive 
F somehow. S.125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially 
enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional 
sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of 
India, 1950. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing 
and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights 
G and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents 
when they are unable to maintain themselves. [Para 5] [586-B, C, D, E] 
H 
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushalv. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors., 
AIR (1978) SC 1807 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat 
and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 503, relied on. 
} 
CHATURBHUJ v. SITA BAI 
579 
1.2. Under the law, the burden is placed in the first place upon the A 
wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant 
case, there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But 
there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the 
wife was unable to maintain herselt: These two conditions are in addition 
to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to B 
maintain his wife. The appellant has placed material to show that the 
respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule 
out application of s.125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the 
amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself. 
Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herselt~ has to be C 
decided on the basis of the material placed on record

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.