Back
2012 Supreme(Jhk) 396
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
POONAM SRIVASTAV, J.
Laljee Kuswaha - Petitioner
Versus
Ranju Devi - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012
Decided on: March 20, 2012
Advocate Appeared:
Akshay Kumar Mahto, for the petitioner.
None, for the respondent.
The duty of the husband to maintain his wife and son under the Special Marriage Act prevailed over the issue of the wife receiving maintenance from another court.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Special Marriage Act - The court awarded maintenance pendente lite to the wife despite her receiving maintenance from another court, emphasizing the husband's duty to maintain his wife and son.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act against the wife. The wife, in response, claimed pendente lite maintenance and the cost of the suit under Section 36 of the Act. She had also been awarded interim maintenance by another court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife and the minor son had no financial source and upheld the award of interim maintenance, emphasizing the husband's duty to maintain his wife and son.
Issues: The issues revolved around the wife's claim for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act in another court and the husband's contention that she made concealment about receiving maintenance from another court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fact of the wife and the minor son having no financial source and the husband's duty to maintain them outweighed the issue of the wife receiving maintenance from another court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the award of interim maintenance to the wife and the minor son.
By the Court.-Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite party.
2. A petition under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act was preferred by the petitioner against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. On receipt of notice wife preferred an application under Section 36 of the aforesaid Act claiming pendente lite maintenance and the cost of the suit. The Court by means of the impugned order awarded Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite.
3. The submission of the learned counsel is that she claimed maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act in Allahabad where she is residing and by means of Annexure-3 she was awarded interim maintenance vide order dated 21.11.2008 to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the claimant and Rs. 1000/- to her son.
4. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Principal Judge. Family Court, Jamshedpur, an order was passed to stay the payment of maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act vide order dated 17.12.2008 in Complaint Case No.564 of 2008.
5. In the circumstances, evidently the opposite party is not getting maintenance on the basis of two different orders. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party made concealment and did not bring this fact to the notice of the Principal Judge, Family Court, that she has been awarded Rs. 1000+Rs. 1000 from Allahabad Court and by making such concealment she is not entitled to get any maintenance.
6. After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that this by itself is not sufficient to disentitle the wife and the minor son from receiving any maintenance. The fact that the opposite is the wife of the petitioner and the one minor son has no financial source is not disputed and, therefore, it is bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and son.
7. Under these facts and circumstances, I do not see any error on the face of record and that the Court has committed any manifest error of law in granting interim maintenance during the pendency of the Matrimonial Suit No. 323 of 2008 pending in the Court of the Principal Judge. Family Court, Jamshedpur.
8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
