Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ganga Ram. - Petitioner.
Versus
Begu Devi . - Respondent.
Cr.M.M.O No. 4075 of 2013
Decided on : 10.1.2014
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ganga Ram. - Petitioner.
Versus
Begu Devi . - Respondent.
Cr.M.M.O No. 4075 of 2013
Decided on : 10.1.2014
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. G.S. Palsra, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the husband's duty to maintain his wife, considering his financial capacity, retirement, and pension.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - The court enhanced the maintenance amount for the wife based on the husband's increased financial capacity and the rising cost of living. The court emphasized the husband's duty to maintain his wife and considered his retirement and pension as factors in determining the maintenance amount.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a petition seeking enhancement of maintenance amount, which was initially increased by the Judicial Magistrate and further enhanced by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, the husband, admitted the relationship and his financial situation, including his retirement and pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's financial capacity had increased, and the cost of living had risen, justifying the enhancement of the maintenance amount for the wife. The court emphasized the husband's duty to maintain his wife, especially considering his retirement and pension.
Issues: The main issue was the enhancement of the maintenance amount for the wife, considering the husband's financial situation, retirement, and duty to maintain his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the husband's increased financial capacity, the rising cost of living, and his duty to maintain his wife, especially in light of his retirement and pension.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for enhancement of maintenance amount, affirming the decision to increase the maintenance for the wife and emphasizing the husband's duty to maintain his wife.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This petition has been filed against the order dated 2.6.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2012.
2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent had filed Cr.M.A. No. 307/IV/09 on 28.10.2009 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount in the Court of Judicial Magistrate st Class, Court No.3, Mandi. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 800/-per month from the date of passing of order, i.e. 19.12.2011. Respondent filed criminal revision against the order dated 19.12.2011 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. He enhanced the maintenance amount of Rs. 800/-to Rs.5000/-per month.
3. Respondent appeared as PW-1. She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PA. She has reiterated the contents of the petition. According to her, due to change in circumstances and increase in the cost of living, she is entitled to enhanced maintenance. According to her, earlier petitioner was Blacksmith and subsequently promoted as Forman.
4. Petitioner has appeared as DW-1. He has admitted the relationship with respondent. According to him, they have three children. Two sons are living with him. One of the sons has four boys and other has three daughters. According to him, monthly expenditure of the family is about Rs. 20,000/-to Rs.22,000/-. He has admitted that his salary was 24,000/-per month. However, he has deposed that his financial condition would deteriorate after his retirement.
5. The application for enhancement was filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi on 28.10.2009. He has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.800/-per month as per order dated 19.12.2011. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 800/-to Rs. 5000/- on 2.6.2012. Petitioner has retired in the month of October, 2012. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. When he was earning Rs. 24,000/- per month, he was only paying a sum of Rs. 500/- to the respondent. It is in these circumstances, the amount has been enhanced initially by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 800/-per month and thereafter by the Additional Sessions Judge from Rs. 800/- to Rs.5000/- per month taking into consideration that the petitioner was working as a Foreman. Petitioner has admitted that the cost of living has increased manifold. Petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-4 to establish that he has retired and is getting pension. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the pension of the petitioner will increase from time to time. It cannot be believed that two grown up children of the parties are not doing anything. Petitioner is duty bond to maintain his wife. His children are already married.
6. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
