Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 64
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Sarita Kumari Daughter Of Kailash Nath Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Avinash Kumar - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.230 of 2018 (Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-)
Decided On : 18-02-2020
Mr.Srinandan Singh, Adv., Ms.Prakritita Sharma, Adv, for the Appellant; Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Adv, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide adequate maintenance to his wife, considering the principles of sustenance and the wife's entitlement to live with dignity. The court emphasized the need to consider the husband's income, status, and capacity to pay maintenance when determining the maintenance amount under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - 125 Cr.P.C. - [125 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed and referenced Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with judicial pronouncements and principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court, to determine the entitlement and quantum of maintenance for the petitioner. Key legal provisions such as the obligation of the husband to support his wife, consideration of status and capacity to pay maintenance, and the principle of sustenance were highlighted and influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, appealed against the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She argued that the awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month was inadequate considering the income and status of her husband. The opposite party opposed the application, claiming financial constraints due to supporting his son, parents, and sisters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party's income and financial responsibilities were not adequately disclosed. It noted discrepancies in the opposite party's statements and concluded that the awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- was unjust and inadequate, considering the principles of sustenance and the husband's obligation to support his wife.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioner, the disclosure of the opposite party's income and financial responsibilities, and the application of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of sustenance, the husband's legal obligation to support his wife, and the consideration of the status and capacity to pay maintenance. It emphasized the need for adequate maintenance to enable the petitioner to live with dignity and rejected the opposite party's changing stand and inadequate disclosure of financial information.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned judgment and ordered the opposite party to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner, considering the husband's income and the principles of sustenance. The maintenance amount was made payable from the date of filing the case, after deducting any interim maintenance already paid by the opposite party.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite party.
2. Petitioner in the present case is the wife of opposite party. She is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No.8 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the petitioner has been granted a maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was married to the opposite party on 19.06.2001, they have a son from the wedlock but soon after the marriage she was being subjected to ill behaviour by her husband and in-laws whereafter she started living in her Maike, her husband does not want to keep her, therefore, she would be entitled for a maintenance commensurate to the status of her husband.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the husband- opposite party is posted as Junior Engineer in the Indian Railway Service and presently he is posted at New Delhi and his salary is about Rs.50,000/- per month. Pointing out to the evidences which were adduced in course of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., learned counsel submits that the opposite party had himself deposed in course of the proceeding and has stated that he does not want to keep this petitioner with him due to her cruelty. The son of the petitioner lives with the opposite party and is doing his education at Delhi. It is her submission that there being an admitted income of at least Rs.50,000/- per month in the hand of the opposite party, an award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- only to the petitioner cannot be said to be a reasonable maintenance and learned Principal Judge has completely erred in not taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements and the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court wherein it has been categorically held that the maintenance has to be awarded by taking into consideration the various aspects including the income of the husband, the status of the parties, their respective needs and reasonable expenses which are required for the maintenance.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705=2015(3) PLJR 58 SC ; the judgment in the case of Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain reported in (2017) 15 SCC 801 and upon judgment of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shayan Ahmad Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 479.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed this application. It is the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party that even though this opposite party was getting as on November, 2017 net payment of Rs.55,756/- from his service (present salary has not been disclosed despite query made by this Court), he has no other source of income and from this income itself he has to maintain his son and parents as well. It is his further submission that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has committed no error by awarding a maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that earlier while hearing the parties on 06.02.2020 this Court had directed the opposite party to file an affidavit disclosing the salary which he was receiving as on 15.11.2017 and other sources of income either from his personal or ancestral property. The said affidavit was called for on finding from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party that he had shown his monthly expenses at Rs.71,660/- whereas in the court below he had taken a plea that he was getting only Rs.40,000/- per month as salary.
8. Today an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is stated that as on 15.11.20
