IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Sumit Saurav - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
Cr. Revision No. 300 of 2020
Decided On : 15-04-2024
(A) Maintenance - Quantum of maintenance - The Family Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 45,000/- per month to the opposite party. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. established guidelines for maintenance proceedings, requiring affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities. The court found that true disclosure regarding income was not made by either party. (Paras 3, 6, 16)
(B) Remand - The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration of the quantum of maintenance, with parties required to file affidavits in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Family Court's order on maintenance, asserting that the opposite party's income was not disclosed, and the matter required fresh consideration.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the quantum of maintenance could not be fixed in revisional jurisdiction and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issues were the correctness of the maintenance quantum and the requirement for affidavits of disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and the necessity of proper income disclosure in maintenance proceedings.
Result: The impugned order was set aside regarding the quantum of maintenance.
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the legality, proprietary and correctness of the judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Original Maintenance Case No. 03 of 2019 whereby the learned Family Court has been pleased to pass an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/-per month to the opposite party no. 2 with effect from the date of the judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2020 was passed prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 dated 04th November, 2020. However, this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 had directed the parties to file their required affidavits in terms of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra). They submitted that affidavit has been filed before this Court, but there is a dispute with regards to correctness of the affidavit.
4. The learned counsels have jointly submitted that there is a serious dispute with regard to the quantum of maintenance in the instant case. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner and both the parties are well educated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no disclosure of income of the opposite party no. 2 before the learned family Court and it cannot be assumed that she did not have any income. He has submitted that the quantum of income is to be determined in accordance with law even though in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra), the affidavit of disclosures was required to be filed in all pending cases. He submits that in view of the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by this court in this case as well as the nature of dispute involved in the present case, the matter is fit to be remanded to the learned Family Court for fresh consideration upon filing of affidavits of both the parties in terms of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra). He submits that the petitioner is ready to file the required the affidavit in terms of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra) before the learned Court below within a period of 15 days from today and a date for that purpose may be fixed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that she has no objection if the matter is remanded for fresh consideration but the maintenance which has been fixed by the learned Family Court be continued to be paid particularly with regards to the current maintenance so that the opposite party may not suffer any problem while conducting her case before the learned family court. He has also submitted that the impugned order of granting maintenance from the date of the judgment and not from the date of filing of the case itself is not correct in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra) which has held that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of filing of the application.
7. Learned counsel has submitted that the maintenance may be continued as interim maintenance subject to the final result of the case before the learned family court.
8. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a distress warrant issued against the petitioner on account of non-payment of maintenance and he submits that the payment of current maintenance be made subject to the final result of the case.
9. He has further submitted that time frame of about two months may be fixed from the date of appearance of the parties, so that the matter is ultimately taken into a logical end. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (supra) has also indicated that in case of false affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities a proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
The obligation of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife is paramount, and proper income disclosure is essential for determining maintenance quantum.
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for maintenance proceedings, including the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities.
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not diminished by the wife's earning capacity, and proper financial disclosures are essential in maintenance proce....
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires financial disclosure from both parties to ensure just outcomes, and non-compliance does not invalidate previous orders.
The court emphasized that maintenance must reflect the dependent spouse's needs and the paying spouse's actual income, ensuring no destitution occurs post-separation.
Courts can grant maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act while other maintenance orders exist; proper assessment of the husband's income is essential for determining just....
A wife can seek maintenance under different statutes; non-disclosure of interim maintenance in previous proceedings cannot bar her claim.
The obligation of the husband to provide maintenance and the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.