Smriti Verma vs Union of India - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 386

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
(8.5.2023)
CWJC No.16821 of 2021
Smriti Verma : Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. : Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suman Kumar Verma.
For the UOI : Ms. Kanak Verma, CGC
For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Mohit Agarwal.

Headnote:
Army Act, 1950 – Sections 90(i) & 91 – Wife on an Army Officer, assailing the order of discontinuance of maintenance granted to her – Competent authority sanctioned grant of maintenance @ 22% per month to the petitioner from the pay and allowances of respondent no. 6 the deduction maintenance allowance in respect of wife was to continue till the marriage of the lady with the officer subsisted or till her death whichever is earlier – there is a purpose behind incorporating clause (i) under Section 90 as well 91 of the Act of 1950 – it provides a mechanism to the wife, legitimate and illegitimate child of an officer and a person other than an officer serving in the Army in the matter of getting relief by way of maintenance – there is no provision under the Act of 1950 providing for grant of maintenance to a wife in terms of clause (i) of Section 90 of the Act of 1950 for a limited period of five years – under these circumstances, the contention of the respondents that the powers conferred under Section 90 and 91 of the Act of 1950 can't be invoked only in extra ordinary circumstances and when an individual is not complying with the orders of a Civil court for paying maintenance to his family, is not only against the law as also against the very spirit behind grant of maintenance to a wife legitimate or illegitimate child and it would result in creating a clog over the provisions of Section 90(i) and 91 (i) of the Act of 1950 – impugned orders are liable to be set aside – regarding territorial jurisdiction, admittedly, the petitioner after having been allegedly ousted from matrimonial house is living with her parents at Muzaffarpur in the State of Bihar – Considering her hardship in defending herself in the Divorce Case in the Family Court at Deoria (U.P.) the Hon'ble Apex Court decided to transfer the case to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur and she was getting her maintenance at Muzaffarpur which has been stopped by impugned orders – issue of territorial jurisdiction rejected – Writ application allowed – entire arrears as well as current maintenance allowance directed to be paid. (Paras 40, 44 & 48)
(1999) 9 SCC 620, (2008) 4 SCC 755, AIR (1961) SC 532, (2007) SCC 335, (2020) 10 SCC 766, (2014) 9 SCC 329, AIR 2004 Dehli 95. – Referred.

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the Union of India and learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking the following reliefs:—

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing thereunder the letter being no. 0420/477/Stop/DV-3 dated 24.06.21 issued by the Colonel, officiating Colonel A (Human Rights) For General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command (Respondent No. 5) seeking to discontinue the Maintenance Allowance of the Petitioner by virtue of being the wife of IC-61794M Lt. Col. Sandeep Kumar (Respondent No. 6), with effect from 10th November, 2021 as a consequence of letter no. 0420/01/DV-3 dated 10.11.2020 and further letter no. 0420/stop/01/DV-3 dated 28.04.2021.

(ii) For further issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing thereunder the letter being no. 0420/01/DV-3 dated 10.11.2020 issued by the Colonel, Staff Officer (Human Rights) for General Officer Commanding-in Chief, Western Command (Respondent No. 5) directing thereunder the petitioner to submit an affidavit in Original duly attested by Notary Public/Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class pertaining to case/cases filed by the Petitioner for maintenance allowance under any act or Code of Criminal Procedure before Civil/Criminal code in view of fresh policy/guideline/advisory notified vide the letter being no. 71902 dated 29.11.2018 issued by the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army).

(iii) For further issuance of a writ quashing the letter being no. 0420/Stop/01/DV-3 dated 28.04.2021 issued by the Colonel, Colonel A (Human Rights) for General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command (Respondent No. 5) seeking thereunder discontinuation of Maintenance Allowance sanctioned earlier in favour of the Petitioner dated 20.11.2015 by virtue of being the wife of IC-61794 M Lt. Col. Sandeep Kumar (Respondent No. 6) with effect from 10.11.2021 placing reliance upon Head Quarters Western Command Letter No. 0420/01/DV-3 dated 10.11.2020.

(iv) For further issuance of an appropriate writ quashing thereunder letter no. 0420/477/Stop/DV-3 dated 26.07.2021 issued by the Colonel, Colonel A (Human Rights) for General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command (Respondent No. 5) directing the Petitioner to file a petition for grant of permanent Maintenance Allowance in Civil Court, if aggrieved, as there is no provision for grant of Maintenance Allowance after completion of finite duration of three years extendable by two years.

(v) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate order/direction instructing and asking thereunder the concerned Respondent/Respondents to bring on record a copy of the Advisory on Maintenance Allowance issued vide letter no. 71902/MT/MISC/AG/DV-4A by the Integrated Head Quarters, Ministry of Defence (Army) (Respondent No. 2) as the same has not been made available to the petitioner.

(vi) To any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Brief Facts of the Case

3. The petitioner was married to respondent no. 6 on 19.11.2013 in accordance with the Hindu Rights and Customs. It is the case of the petitioner that soon after her arrival in the matrimonial house, demands for post-marriage dowry were made by respondent no. 6 who is serving as Major in Indian Army. This led to a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The petitioner claims that she has been ousted from the matrimonial house on 19.06.2014 and has been denied her legitimate rights to live a dignified life being wife of an Army Officer. She claims that having no source of income on her own, she chose to approach the Commanding Officer, 196 Field Regiment, C/o 56 APO by way of a letter which was handed over to Major K. K. Charan (IC 65581W) at Gurgaon which was the place of posting of respondent no. 6 at the relevant time.

4. Considering the grievance of the petitioner