SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.
Smt. Neha Thakur W/o Durgesh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Durgesh Thakur S/o Balmiki Thakur – Respondent
CRR No. 619 of 2022
Decided on : 12-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate

Maintenance awarded under Section 125 should ensure the dependent spouse's comfort, considering the standard of living and financial capacity of the spouse obliged to pay.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Family Law - Maintenance - Revision against Family Court order awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- - Applicants claimed insufficient maintenance compared to respondent's salary - Court emphasized the need for just and reasonable maintenance in the context of rising costs of living and responsibilities of the husband, enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

(B) Maintenance - Quantum - The Court reiterated that maintenance should ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy, factoring in the financial capacity of the husband and the standard of living to which the wife is accustomed. (Paras 11, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, wife, married the respondent in 2015, faced dowry demands, and applied for maintenance. Respondent has other financial obligations. The Family Court initially awarded maintenance that was claimed inadequate. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The findings regarding entitlement to maintenance were unchallenged. The awarded amounts were found insufficient considering the financial obligations of the respondent and needs of the applicants. (Paras 5, 6, 10)

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of awarded maintenance considering the financial position of the respondent and the needs of the applicants. (Paras 2, 6, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the purpose of maintenance is to ensure the dependent spouse's comfort and to not reduce them to destitution. The financial constraints of the respondent were balanced against their obligations towards the applicants. (Paras 11, 13, 16)

Result: Revision application allowed in part; maintenance increased to Rs. 6,000/- for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- for applicant No. 2.

Table of Content
1. background facts regarding marriage and maintenance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on adequacy of maintenance amounts. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations and analysis of maintenance rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. legal standards and guidance on determining maintenance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. judicial principles formulated for calculating maintenance amounts. (Para 15)
6. final orders regarding enhancement of maintenance. (Para 16 , 17)

ORDER :

1. Applicant has filed this revision questioning the legality and sustainability of the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) in MJC No.1276 of 2016 whereby learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants in part and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that applicant No. 1 married with the non-applicant on 14.12.2015. From their wedlock they were blessed with applicant No. 2. After some time of marriage, applicant was harassed, ill-treated on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Applicant No. 1 was also assaulted at times by the non-applicant due to which applicant No. 1 has lodged report in the concerned Police Station, based upon which, crime for offence under Section 4 98A, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry (Prohibition) Act, 1961 was registered on 09.12.2016. The applicants filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. During pendency of the application, it was amended and applicant No. 2 herein was also added as applicant No. 2 in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was replied by non-applicant denying all the adverse pleadings made therein and further added that applicant No.1 herself is not interested in residing with non-applicant. He wants to continue the relationship, keep applicants with him and to maintain them. Applicant No. 1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, hence, application be rejected. The learned Family Court enquired into the application and based on the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the application in part and held that applicant No. 1 is having sufficient reasons for not residing in the company of the non-applicant. Considering the salary of non-applicant, as mentioned in the salary slip and further taking note of the fact that non-applicant is paying a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to his parents i.e. 7,500/- each to mother and father, has allowed the application in part and awarded Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the learned Court below erred in awarding meager sum of Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2 (daughter). Non-applicant no. 1 is getting salary of Rs. 39,000/- per month and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.04.2017 in civil appeal no.5367/2017 ( Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury ) applicant wife herself is entitled for at least onefourth of the salary of non-applicant (husband). He contended that income of salary as concluded by learned Family Court is 39,000/- per month and therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have awarded at least Rs.10,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 1 and further amount of Rs. 5,000/- in favor of applicant No. 2. He submits that application stated to have been filed by parents seeking maintenance is artificial, only to dislodge applicants from seeking appropriate amount of compensation for meeting their day to day needs. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of parents is filed during pendency of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants and within short period, non-applicant in settlement before the Lok Adalat agreed to pay Rs. 7,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top