Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 1037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI NATH VERMA, J.
Sweta Rani & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Opp. Parties
Cr. Revision No.404 of 2014
Decided On : 17.09.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Awanish Shankar, A.P.P.
The main legal point established is that in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must consider the financial means and living standard of the parties to determine the maintenance amount.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court examined the mandatory requirement of sufficiency of means of the opposite party, considered the income and living standard of the parties, and enhanced the maintenance amount based on the husband's monthly salary and perks.
Fact of the Case:
The wife and two minor sons sought to enhance the maintenance amount granted by the court below. The wife alleged assault by in-laws, forced to take shelter at her father's house, and dependence on her old parents. The husband denied financial capability to maintain separately and offered to keep the family with his own.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's monthly salary and means were not adequately considered in the maintenance amount granted to the wife. It enhanced the maintenance amount based on the husband's financial capacity.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the maintenance amount granted to the wife in consideration of the husband's financial means and living standard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the mandatory requirement of sufficiency of means under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the income and living standard of the parties to enhance the maintenance amount.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and enhanced the monthly maintenance amount for the wife from Rs. 7000 to Rs. 10,000 based on the husband's financial capacity.
The wife and two minor sons of opposite party no.2Manish Ranjan have preferred this revision against the order dated 22nd February, 2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in Miscellaneous Case No.03 of 2011 with the prayer to enhance the maintenance amount of Rs.7000/per month granted by the court below in favour of the petitioner no.1the wife. However, the amount of maintenance of Rs.3500/per month each awarded to the two minor sons, have not been challenged by the petitioner no.1 (the wife).
2. The petitioner no.1 alongwith her two minor sons presented a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) on 16.03.2011 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella with the pleadings that her marriage with Manish Ranjan, the present opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 21.02.2003 in the District of Gaya as per Hindu rites and custom. At the time of marriage, huge cash amount, car, jewellery and house hold articles were given to the parents of her husband and after marriage she came to her matrimonial home and lived their peacefully for almost four months but thereafter her inlaws particularly fatherinlaw and motherinlaw started assaulting her. She came to Hyderabad where her husband was posted in State Bank of Hyderabad. Out of their wedlock, petitioner nos.2 and 3 were born but whenever her inlaws came to Hyderabad, her husband and inlaws used to assault her. Even in presence of the brother of petitioner no.1, she was assaulted by her husband and finally she was driven out of her matrimonial home. She was forced to take shelter in her father’s house at Adityapur (Seraikella) alongwith her two minor children. In the said petition, it is also pleaded that she has no independent source of income and she alongwith her two children are dependent upon her old parents. She has also filed a complaint case against the opposite party no.2her husband and inlaws for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The two sons are presently studying in St. Xaviers School at Jamshedpur. It is also pleaded that her husband being a senior officer of Scale III in State Bank of Hyderabad, is getting salary of Rs.65,000/per month and has sufficient means to maintain her and her two minor children. Hence, she cannot be forced to become burden over the old parents. The inlaws are also not dependent upon their son as after superannuation from the post of Regional Transport Officer her fatherinlaw has been getting pension of Rs.25,000/per month and motherinlaw after her retirement from the post of teacher, is also getting pension of Rs.10,000/per month. Besides the above, her husband has approximately Rs.2,00,000/annual income from cultivation and Rs.10,000/per month as rent from the house at Gaya.
3. It appears from the record that even after valid service of notice on the present opposite party no.2 in court below, he preferred not to appear in the court. Whereafter the order was passed for service of notice through substituted service. Accordingly, notice was published in local newspaper but in spite of that he did not appear in court. The court below then fixed the case for exparte hearing on 25.05.2012. But on 11.04.2013, the opposite party appeared in court and prayed to set aside the order of exparte hearing. It appears that the order of exparte hearing was recalled and the present opposite party was directed to file showcause. In his showcause, the opposite party (the husband) has not denied his marriage with the petitioner no.1Sweta Rani and also not denied that the two minor sons are not his sons but alleged that to put legal pressure on him, a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections has been filed by his wife. It is also pleaded that it is the wife, who does not want to reside with him though he is still ready to keep and maintain his wife and two children with full dignity and honour, but she is always creating nuisance in the family. It is also pl
