Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. Heard.
2. These two petitions have been filed being aggrieved with the order dated 1.2.2016 passed in Criminal MJC No.F-33/15 by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, by the wife and son - applicants 1 & 2 (CRR No. 188/2016) for granting and enhancement of maintenance respectively and by the husband-applicant/non- applicant (CRR No. 290/2016) for quashment of the impugned order.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/non-applicant No. 1-wife Smt. Geetanjali Gupta has preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 17.3.2015 alleging that her marriage with the applicant/non-applicant-husband Surendra Gupta was solemnized on 24.3.2010 and out of such wedlock, applicant/non-applicant No. 2 Rinkal Gupta was born. After the birth of applicant No. 2 (son), the husband started quarrelling with the wife, used to beat her and threatened to burn her to death and further refused to keep her along with him. Therefore, the wife had made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh on 7.3.2013. Thereafter, the husband executed an agreement for compromise and assured of not repeating such act and cruel behaviour in future. Inspite of such an agreement, the behaviour of the husband did not improve and therefore, the wife started residing separately since 1.5.2013.
4. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.PC for grant of maintenance as she was unable to maintain herself and her minor son and the husband neglected them by not paying any maintenance. She pleaded that the husband is running a snack shop at Shahid Chowk, Raigarh and also earning rental income from the shop. The total income of the husband is to the tune of Rs.53,000/- per month, therefore, she prayed to grant maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month.
5. The husband denied such allegations levelled by the wife and also denied any relation with her and further denied his relation with Rinkal Gupta (son). He further pleaded that due to the pressure of the Police, he executed the aforesaid agreement; wife - Geetanjali Gupta was married with one Vinod Singh and since Vinod Singh left her, she is presently residing with her brother-in-law and had filed a false and frivolous litigation for maintenance against him. The wife has examined herself and one Naresh Mishra, Advocate and the husband has examined himself and one Kalika Singh. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Court, vide the impugned order, granted maintenance only to Minor Rinkal Gupta (minor son) - applicant/non-applicant No. 2, to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. Since, Geetanjali Gupta failed to prove herself as the legally wedded wife of Surendra Gupta, the application filed on her behalf was dismissed. Hence, the wife has preferred CRR No. 188/2016 on the ground that her application has wrongly been dismissed vide the impugned order and the maintenance awarded to the son is also on lower side, which may be suitably enhanced. So far as the husband is concerned, he has preferred CRR No. 290/2016 challenging the impugned order with regard to grant of maintenance to minor son Rinkal Gupta on the ground that no biological proof/evidence has been adduced by the wife with regard to him, hence the maintenance granted to the son vide the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, it may be set- aside.
6. Geetanjali Gupta (AW-1- wife) has categorically deposed that Surendra Gupta got married with her on 24.3.2010 at village Urdana, Sai Mandir, Raigarh by putting vermilion on her forehead and also by tying Mangalsutra on her neck. Thereafter, they both were living together as husband and wife at Lochan Nagar, Raigarh and out of their such wedlock, minor son - Rinkal Gupta was born. It was stated that the husband used to consume liquor and quarrel with her and also threatened to burn her to death by pouring petrol over her. She has filed a Birth Certificate of the Metro Hospital, Raigarh-Ex.P/1 in which, it has been clearly mentioned that the name of the father of minor son - Rinkal Gupta is Surendra Gupta and on such basis, the Birth Certificate-Ex.-P/2 has also been issued by the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. Further, an agreement -Ex.-P/7 has also been executed by the husband to not to repeat such cruel behaviour against the wife. In the electricity bill-Ex.P/5, the name of the husband of Geetanjail Gupta is mentioned as 'Surendra Gupta'. Even the Voters list-Ex.P/8C, Aadhar Card- Ex.P/8 and School Fees Register - Ex.P/7 have been filed in support of the revision filed by the wife.
7. In the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, [LQ/SC/2020/766 ;] it has been observed that a broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term "wife" to include even those cases where man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for reasonably a long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
8. Considering the evidence adduced by the wife, it is amply proved on record that husband - Surendra Gupta and wife - Geetanjali Gupta have been living together as husband and wife for quite a long period of time and out of their relationship, minor son - Rinkal Gupta was born.
9. It is well settled that the provisions of maintenance enacted under Section 125 of the CrPC is a piece of social legislation and the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able bodied and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.PC filed by wife - Geetanjali Gupta is not sustainable and accordingly, her application is allowed and the impugned order, so far as it relates to her, is set-aside and thereby, she is granted monthly maintenance @ Rs.2500/- from the date of the order of the trial Court.
11. So far as impugned order granting maintenance to minor son - Rinkal Gupta @ Rs.1500/- is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that he shall be granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2500/- instead of Rs.1500/- from the date of the order of the trial Court till he attains the age of majority.
12. Resultantly, CRR No. 188 of 2016 filed on behalf of wife Geetanjali Gupta and minor son Rinkal Gupta (applicants 1 & 2 therein) is allowed.
13. Consequently, CRR No. 290/2016 filed by husband Surendra Gupta (applicant therein) is dismissed.
