Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
V. NATH, J.
Aradhana Kumari Wife of Sri Pawan Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.329 of 2016, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21204 of 2014 IN Cr. Rev. 989 of 2013
Decided on : 16-05-2017
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - 15, 11, 14 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which empowers the court to order maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The court referred to the case of Sri Sunil Chandra Singh Vs. Smt. Seema Singh, 2017 (1)PLJR 700, and the apex court's ruling in Civil Appeal No. 4615/2017 (Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain) to establish the legal principles guiding the determination of interim maintenance. The court emphasized the husband's legal duty to maintain his wife and the discretion of the court in granting alimony pendente lite. The court also highlighted the consequences of non-payment of maintenance, including the potential dismissal of the case for disobedience of court orders.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed for divorce and the court ordered him to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife. The husband challenged the order, claiming it was not legally justified and that he faced financial difficulties. The wife sought direction for payment of the due amount, which was dismissed by the court below.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had a regular source of income and was legally liable to pay maintenance to the wife. It noted the husband's non-compliance with the maintenance order and the adverse reflection of his alleged second marriage on the issue of non-compliance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and sustainability of the maintenance order, the husband's financial difficulties, and the wife's plea for realization of the due maintenance amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal duty of the husband to maintain his wife, the discretion of the court in granting interim maintenance, and the consequences of non-payment of maintenance as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Final Decision: The husband's petition was dismissed, and the wife's application was allowed. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the husband to deposit/pay the arrears and current amount of maintenance and litigation cost within a reasonable time, with the threat of dismissal of the divorce case for disobedience of court orders.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties appearing in both the applications.
2. Both the applications have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the respective orders passed in T.S. (Mat.) Case No.18/2012. By earlier order dated 23.03.2017 in C.Misc.No.329/2016, both the applications have been directed to be heard together.
3. The parties to the proceeding are husband and wife. The T.S. (Mat.) Case No.18/2012 has been filed by the husband-petitioner in CWJC No.21204/2014 seeking a decree of divorce. On the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife, the learned court below by order dated 27.07.2013 has directed the husband to pay Rs.9,000/- per month for maintenance and Rs.1,000/- per month for expenses of the litigation. The husband-petitioner has filed CWJC No. 21204/2014 questioning the legal sustainability of the said order.
4. As the aforesaid amount as directed by order dated 27.07.2013 was not paid by the husband, the wife approached the court below by filing petitions in that regard for direction for payment of the said amount. The C.Misc.No.329/2016 has been filed by the wife as petitioner against the order dated 20.02.2016 whereby the learned court below has dismissed the petition dated 06.01.2016 filed by the wife with direction to file petition for realization of the due amount after disposal of the Cr.Revision No.989/2013. It would be relevant to notice here that the Cr.Revision No.989/2013 has thereafter been converted to CWJC No.21204/2014.
5. The learned counsel for the husband-petitioner in CWJC No.21204/2014 has submitted that the impugned order dated 27.07.2013 for payment of total Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife respondent is not sustainable in law; firstly because the amount has been fixed by the learned court below arbitrarily on higher side and secondly because in the facts and circumstances of the case such an order was not legally justified .Elaborating the submissions, it has been contended that the petitioner –husband has always been ready to keep the wife-respondent with him as his wife but due to malafide and harassing intention wife-respondent has not agreed to the said proposal. It has also been argued that the petitioner-husband is ready for one time settlement, which fact has been ignored by the learned court below. It has also been submitted that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is being paid by the husband-petitioner to the wife-respondent in pursuance to the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 35137/2013 (Annexure-2) while granting anticipatory bail to the husband-petitioner in criminal case filed by the wife-petitioner under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It has also been argued that the husband petitioner has to maintain and meet the expenses of his ailing mother and family members and therefore the direction for payment of amount of Rs.10,000/- per month in addition to Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the wife respondents will be very difficult to comply. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the husband-petitioner however has accepted that no amount has been paid uptil now in compliance of the order dated 27.07.2013 under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act.
6. While resisting the prayer of the husband-petitioner and controverting the submissions on his behalf, learned counsel for the wife-respondent has submitted that there is no legal infirmity in the order dated 27.07.2013 passed by the learned court below allowing the prayer of the wife-respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been submitted that the wife respondent has no means to support her and she is leading a life of destitution having been compelled to live with parents. It has been canvassed that at the time when the order dated 27.07.2013 was passed, the husband-petitioner, who is a C.R.P.F Personnel, was getting gross salary of Rs.32751/- and by referring to the annex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
