Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Prasad, J.
Manoj Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Opp. Parties
Cr. Rev. No. 27 of 2018, Cr. M. P. No. 916 of 2018
Decided On : 22-02-2024
[MAINTENANCE] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE] - [Section 125] - [The court discussed Section 125 of the CrPC, which provides for maintenance to wives who are unable to maintain themselves. The court emphasized that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is a statutory duty, and the assessment of maintenance should consider the husband's income and the wife's needs. The court also referenced various Supreme Court judgments that interpret the provisions of maintenance, highlighting that a wife is entitled to maintenance even if she has filed for divorce or has been subjected to cruelty. The court ultimately modified the maintenance amount from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month, considering the husband's financial obligations and previous payments made under different proceedings.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Family Court's order directing him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Sanju Devi, under Section 125 of the CrPC. The wife claimed that she was unable to maintain herself due to her husband's income from business and rent, while the husband contended that the maintenance claim was not maintainable and that he was earning only Rs. 7,000 per month as a clerk.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Family Court had properly assessed the husband's income based on his income tax returns, which indicated a monthly income of approximately Rs. 47,560. The court noted that the wife had no independent income and was entitled to maintenance. However, it deemed the initially ordered amount of Rs. 10,000 excessive and modified it to Rs. 7,000 per month.
Issues: Whether the Family Court's order for maintenance was justified based on the husband's income and the wife's financial needs, and whether the maintenance amount should be modified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the husband has a statutory obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC, and that the assessment of maintenance should consider the husband's financial capacity and the wife's needs. The court also highlighted that a wife can claim maintenance even if she has filed for divorce or has been subjected to cruelty.
Final Decision: The court modified the Family Court's order, reducing the maintenance amount from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month, effective from the date of filing the petition, and directed the petitioner to pay any arrears within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Prasad, J.
The Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner challenging the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by Sri Ram Sharma, the learned Principal Judge-cum- Family Court, Dhanbad in the M. P. Case No. 271 of 2014 whereby Sri Ram Sharma, the learned Principal Judge-cum- Family Court, Dhanbad has allowed the petition of the opposite party no. 2 filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance and has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 and further directed to pay the maintenance amount from the date of filing of the petition and has also directed to make payment of arrears within a month from the date of the order dated 30.11.2017 failing which the opposite party no. 2 will be entitled to get the same recovered through the process of law and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of proceeding.
2. The wife i.e. the opposite party no. -2, Sanju Devi @ Sanju Singh has filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad on 09.09.2014 in prescribed format stating therein that she has been married with the petitioner on 23.04.2004 as per Hindu Customs at Dhanbad and after marriage, they lived as husband and wife. It is stated that the petitioner i.e. the husband is doing business of Crusher and is earning rent from his house. However, the wife-opposite party no.2 and the petitioner- husband are living separately and she has no resource to maintain herself. It is stated that her husband is earning Rs. 25,000/- from business of crusher and earning Rs. 15,000/- as rent from house i.e. total amounting Rs. 40,000/- per month and hence the petitioner may be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance.
3. The petitioner –husband has appeared and filed show cause stating therein that the petition under Section 125 of the CrPC is not maintainable and the allegations made in the petition are false and concocted and the petitioner has not committed physical and verbal abuse against the opposite party no. 2. It has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 23-04-2004 at Dhanbad according to Hindu Rites and Customs, the rest of the statement and allegations made in the said para are false and baseless. The petitioner had filed a false case bearing Dhanbad (Saraidhella) P.S. Case no. 75/09 dated 03.02.2009 (vide G. R. No. 335 of 2009) under section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner, his father, mother, brother and sister as a counter blast to T(M)S No.535/08 for divorce filed by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 on 30.09.2008 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad and one C.P. Case no. 1959/08 filed in Court of the C.J. M. Dhanbad for the occurrence of 06.10.2008 by the petitioner. It is stated that compromise was arrived at between the Parties and T.M.S. Suit no. 93/08 for Divorce as well as C.P. Case no. 1959/08 were withdrawn by the petitioner on account of compromise. It is stated that even after the compromise and withdrawal of case by the Petitioner, there was no improvement in Cruel and atrocious behaviour of the opposite party no. 2 so the petitioner had no option but to file a fresh TMS Suit 535 of 2008 for divorce against the petitioner on 30.09.2008. The said case has been disposed of by the Family Court and the Appeal is pending in the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2 had also filed a case under the act of domestic violence vide case no. Complaint Case No. 1383 of 2016 now pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhanbad. The opposite party no. 2 is habitual to file a series of cases to harass the petitioner. It is stated that due to atrocious and insulting behaviour of the opposite party no. 2, the father and mother of the petitioner were compelled to leave their own house in Co-operative C
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC is a statutory duty, and the assessment of maintenance must consider the husband's income and the wife's financial needs....
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., regardless of her marital status, emphasizing the husband's obligation to provide for his wife and children.
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.
A wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if she is living separately from her husband without sufficient reason, while the obligation to maintain children remains absolute.
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his first wife and children, even after a second marriage, and a wife's refusal to live with her husband due to the presence of a second wife is justified u....
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of financial incapacity must be supported by credible evidence; failure to do so can result in t....
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., ensuring no financial hardship due to marital dissolution without just cause.
A husband must ensure his wife’s financial support and maintain her standard of living unless he proves his inability to earn, as emphasized under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act.
There is no bar to seek maintenance under different statutes, and the amount awarded should not overlap and should be inclusive of maintenance under each jurisdiction and not exclusive.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
