IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Sh. Dhirender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bala – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 643/2019
Cr.REV.P. 231 of 2019
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Maintenance - Family Dispute - CrPC - Hindu Marriage Act - [125 of CrPC, 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] - The court discussed the maintenance claim under Section 125 of CrPC and the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also referred to the judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, which emphasized the entitlement of maintenance from the date of application and the adjustment of maintenance awarded in any other proceeding between the same parties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a wife and husband regarding maintenance for the wife and minor son. The wife alleged harassment, physical abuse, and refusal of maintenance by the husband, while the husband denied the allegations and claimed the wife had a source of income.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had means to pay maintenance and had received substantial compensation, and thus directed him to pay maintenance to the wife and minor son. The court also amended the maintenance award to be from the date of the application.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of harassment, physical abuse, and refusal of maintenance by the husband, as well as the husband's claim regarding the wife's source of income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the husband's means and capacity to pay maintenance, the entitlement of maintenance from the date of application, and the adjustment of maintenance awarded in any other proceeding between the same parties.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the wife was partly allowed, amending the maintenance award to be from the date of the application. The husband was directed to clear all arrears and pay the maintenance amount to the wife and minor son.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J.
1. The present revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2018 passed by Ms. Sarita Birbal, Judge, Family Court: East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CC No. 201/2017 titled 'Bala and Ors. v. Dhirendra Kumar', whereby in a petition under Section 125 of CrPC, filed on behalf of Smt. Bala and Master Himanshu (petitioners in CRL.REV.P. 643/2019) seeking maintenance, Sh. Dhirender (petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 231/2019) was directed to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-per month to Smt. Bala with effect from 01.12.2018 and Rs. 20,000 per month to Master Himanshu with effect from 01.12.2018 till he attains majority.
2. By CRL.REV.P. 643/2019, the petitioners Smt. Bala and Master Himanshu (hereinafter referred to as 'wife and minor son') seek enhancement of the interim maintenance passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 19.11.2018. Learned counsel on behalf of wife, in the alternative prays that maintenance awarded by the impugned order should be from the date of application instead of being prospectively from 01.12.2018.
By CRL.REV.P. 231/2019, the petitioner Sh. Dhirender (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order.
3. The case on behalf of petitioners in CRL.REV.P. 643/2019, as argued before the learned Family Court is as under:
i. The marriage between wife and husband was solemnized on 21.02.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 21.01.2002. Due to temperamental differences, the parties started residing separately and the minor child stayed with wife.
ii. It was argued that wife's father, at the time of her wedding, gave dowry including a Maruti-800 car and cash in the sum of Rs. 51,000/-. It was further their case that husband's family demanded Rs. 1.5 lakh in cash and an Esteem car and even harassed wife for non-fulfillment of the said demands. Ultimately, wife left her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. After some time, husband took wife and minor son back to their matrimonial home but the harassment and physical abuse did not stop. It was further argued that wife had filed a complaint at the local chowki but no action was taken. It was argued that on one occasion, husband and his brothers beat wife and threatened to kill her, however, she was rescued by passersby. A police complaint with respect to the said incident was also filed. Thereafter, the parties started residing separately.
iii. It was argued that husband had refused to maintain wife and minor son, even though wife was unemployed and unable to maintain herself and minor son. Husband worked as a money lender and a property dealer and earned Rs. 50,000/-per month and other than maintaining his estranged wife and minor child, he had no other liabilities.
4. The case on behalf of petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 231/2019, as argued before the learned Family Court is as under:
i. It was argued that the allegations leveled pertaining to demands of dowry and the alleged harassment and physical abuse were false and that the differences between the parties were on account of wife's arrogant behavior to husband's family. It was further argued that on one occasion, wife quarreled with husband which resulted in physical injuries to the latter.
ii. Husband denied working as a property dealer and it was submitted that he had a private job as a 'supervisor' at M/s Avis Aqua and earned Rs. 3,500/-a month. It was urged on behalf of husband that wife earned Rs. 10,000/-per month from her own boutique and that she earned Rs. 3,000/-per month by way of interest.
5. In a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC filed on behalf of wife and minor son seeking interim maintenance, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 26.02.2007 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month to wife and Rs. 1,000/-per month to minor son.
6. Durin
The entitlement of maintenance from the date of application and the adjustment of maintenance awarded in any other proceeding between the same parties.
The court reaffirmed that an able-bodied husband has a legal duty to maintain his wife and children, and maintenance should be based on actual income capacity.
The judgment reinforces the principle that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, reflecting her needs and his financial capacity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, including the factors to be considered and the need for a reasonable and realistic mainten....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, considering his financial capacity and the wife's need for support, as provided under the Hindu....
The wife is entitled to an enhancement of maintenance based on the husband's income and the wife's financial situation. The court emphasizes the need for timely disposal of maintenance applications a....
Grant of interim maintenance – Magistrate is required to find out what is required by wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but is modestly consistent with st....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.