Facts
The petitioner (husband) challenged the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah.
Source reference: p. 1The Family Court directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of ₹4,000 to his wife (Respondent No. 2) and ₹1,000 to their minor younger son from the date of filing (22.01.2016) and date of birth respectively.
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner contended he is an auto-rickshaw driver with limited means, responsible for an elder son in private school, and alleged that the wife deserted him with cash and ornaments.
Source reference: p. 2The wife contended she was on the verge of starvation and had received no support since 2016.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether a husband can be relieved of his maintenance obligations under Section 125 of the CrPC (now BNSS) on the grounds of being a poor person with insufficient income if he is an able-bodied young man.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the High Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, can re-appreciate factual findings of a Family Court regarding the husband's income and assets.
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
the principle that an able-bodied, healthy young man possesses "earning potentiality" and is legally obligated to support his wife and children; he cannot evade this responsibility by claiming poverty.
Source reference: p. 2-3scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits the re-appreciation of facts or substitution of the trial court’s views with its own, provided there is no illegality or impropriety.
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court observed that the Family Court had already considered the petitioner’s "assets and liabilities certificate" and his claim of being a daily wage laborer.
Source reference: p. 3The High Court agreed with the trial court's reasoning that since the petitioner is an able-bodied man, he has the capacity to earn and fulfill his maintenance obligations regardless of his specific claim of poverty.
Source reference: p. 3The Court further noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any "illegality, impropriety or irregularity" in the original order.
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the Court held that it could not engage in a factual re-appreciation of the evidence presented at the trial level.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court answered that an able-bodied man cannot be relieved of maintenance duties due to claims of meager income and held that the revisional court cannot re-evaluate facts decided by the Family Court.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the maintenance order of ₹5,000 per month.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Mohammad Wasim @ Wasim @ Md. Wasim KhanvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in