Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Santosh Sharma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 895 of 2012
Decided On : 04-01-2017
For the Appellant : S.R. Surana, Sanjay Yadav
For the Respondents: Meenakshi Pareek
Important Point—Different criteria cannot be adopted for awarding maintenance to a wife under provisions of the Act.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Sections 12 and 20—Domestic violence—Restraint order—All expenses incurred by an aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence can be awarded to aggrieved person from respondent but such expenses must be incurred by aggrieved persons as a result of domestic violence committed by respondent—Maintenance for aggrieved person is also one of monetary relief which Magistrate may award to her if it is found that she has suffered domestic violence at the hand of respondent—Such maintenance can be an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or in addition to such an order or under any other law for the time being in force—Such maintenance must be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with standard of living to which aggrieved person is accustomed.
(B) Family Law—Maintenance—Object and purpose of award of maintenance to wife or other person is to save them from destitution and vagrancy—It is well settled legal position under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that if wife is earning income of her own sufficient to maintain herself properly, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband even if he has sufficient means and has neglected or refused to maintain her—As per Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, wife living separately without any cause as provided in provision, cannot claim maintenance from her husband—Different criteria cannot be adopted for awarding maintenance to a wife under provisions of the Act.
Result—Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The primary issue concerns the entitlement of a wife to claim maintenance from her husband, especially when she has her own independent income. The legal position emphasizes that if a wife is earning sufficient income to maintain herself properly, she is generally not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband, even if the husband has the means and neglects or refuses to provide support (!) (!) .
-
The object of awarding maintenance is to prevent destitution and vagrancy. Maintenance should be fair, adequate, and reasonable, aligned with the standard of living to which the wife is accustomed. Different criteria for awarding maintenance under various laws cannot be adopted indiscriminately; instead, the criteria established under relevant laws, such as the Cr.P.C., should be considered (!) (!) .
-
The evidence in the case indicates that the wife was a qualified professional, having joined as a nurse before marriage, and was earning a salary that exceeds the maintenance amount awarded by the courts. The courts found that she was not compelled to take up employment out of necessity but was pursuing her career, which diminishes her claim for maintenance (!) (!) .
-
The courts also noted that there was no reliable evidence to establish that the wife was harassed or subjected to cruelty or dowry demands during her short stay at her matrimonial home. The findings of the lower courts in this regard were upheld, and the wife’s claim for maintenance was scrutinized in light of her own income and circumstances (!) (!) .
-
The legal provisions regarding domestic violence and maintenance under the relevant Act specify that expenses incurred due to domestic violence, including maintenance, can be awarded if demonstrated that such expenses resulted from domestic violence committed by the respondent. The amount awarded must be fair, reasonable, and in line with the standard of living (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The definition of an "aggrieved person" under the law requires a woman to have a domestic relationship with the respondent and to have been subjected to domestic violence. Merely having a domestic relationship does not automatically entitle her to relief; she must also prove that she was subjected to acts of domestic violence as defined (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
In this case, the wife’s own evidence indicated that she was earning a substantial salary from her employment, which was not out of constraint but as a professional choice. Consequently, she was not entitled to maintenance, and the courts set aside the orders awarding monetary relief (!) (!) .
-
The overall conclusion is that the revision petition was allowed, and the orders granting maintenance were quashed. The claim for maintenance was dismissed based on the evidence indicating the wife’s sufficient income and the absence of proof of domestic violence or coercion (!) .
These points summarize the legal reasoning and findings relevant to the issue of maintenance and domestic violence as discussed in the document.
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2012 whereby the learned Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the 'Act') affirmed and upheld the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1242/2009 whereby the learned trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 12 of the Act filed by the respondent No. 2-Smt. Anjali and directed the petitioners not to commit domestic violence in any manner upon the respondent and also directed petitioner Shri Santosh Sharma to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. It was further directed that the aforesaid amount would be payable from the date of the order. It is to be noted that presently the petitioners are aggrieved mainly with that part of the order whereby the aforesaid amount was awarded to the respondent as maintenance.
3. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence available on record to show even prima facie that petitioners or any other their family member harassed or ill-treated the respondent-complainant during the short period of less than thirty days in which she lived in her matrimonial home after the marriage or demand of dowry was made from her or from her parents but she left her matrimonial home at her own volition as she wanted to pursue her professional career as a Nurse and she joined on the post of GNM in the year 2009 before present application under Section 12 of the Act was filed and this material fact was not disclosed in it and this fact alone disentitles her to claim maintenance from her husband. It was further submitted that from the evidence made available on record, it is clear that respondent has her own independent and separate income sufficient to maintain her in a proper way and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband more particularly in absence of evidence about definite income of the husband. It was also submitted that there is no provision in the Act providing that maintenance is to be awarded to the wife even if she is having her own independent and separate income sufficient to maintain her. In the present case, the complainant-wife demanded Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance and the Court has awarded Rs. 8,000/- per month whereas she is getting salary of more than Rs. 14,000/- per month which is far more than the amount of maintenance awarded by the Courts below.
4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Biswajit Murmu & another Vs. State of West Bengal and another, 2015 Cr.L.J. 4792 (Calcutta High Court).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that there is concurrent finding of the Courts below that respondent was compelled by her in-laws to leave matrimonial home within a short period after marriage as their demand for dowry could not be fulfilled and there is no reason to interfere in this finding. It was further submitted that there is no evidence on record showing that respondent was pursuing her career as a Nurse before marriage and, therefore, she had no option but to join on the post of GNM on temporary basis when she was forced by the petitioners to leave her matrimonial home so as to maintain herself till she gets maintenance from her husband and for that reason only she cannot be deprived of her right to claim maintenance from her husband who belongs to an affluent business family having joint family business of chemical products and several immovable properties at
