Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1133 (JHR)

Sweta Rani v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-17

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : 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. 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 pleaded that he is not financially capable to maintain his wife and two sons separately rather he is ready to keep her and two minor sons alongwith his family members. Hence, the application filed for maintenance of Rs.15,000/per month has no merit. 4. It is also pleaded that he is not financially capable to maintain his wife and two sons separately rather he is ready to keep her and two minor sons alongwith his family members. Hence, the application filed for maintenance of Rs.15,000/per month has no merit. 4. The court below after examining the pleadings of the parties, the documents and the witnesses brought on record by the petitionerSweta Rani and the testimony of the opposite party no.2Manish Ranjan, directed the opposite party no.2 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.7000/per month to the present petitioner no.1 and Rs.3500/per month to each minor sons but the petitioner no.1 (the wife) being not satisfied with the amount of maintenance, preferred this revision. 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while appreciating the finding of the court below granting maintenance of Rs.3500/per month each to the two minor sons, assailed the finding of the court below by which sum of Rs.7000/has been granted to the petitioner no.1, and seriously contended that the court below failed to take judicial notice of monthly salary of Rs.60,000/of the opposite party no.2 besides other income and also failed to consider the living standard, the financial and social status of the parties particularly when her husband is getting a handsome salary and other perks and working on a very high position in a nationalized Bank. It was also submitted that the amount granted as maintenance to the petitioner no.1 is not commensurate to the standard of life which the opposite party is maintaining and it is a fit case for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 6. It appears from the record of criminal revision application that notice was issued to the opposite party but even after service of notice, he did not appear. Whereafter the court directed the District Judge of the concerned district to get the notice served upon the opposite party as he was appearing in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella in connection with R.I.T., Adityapur P.S. Case No.61 of 2010 but even after service of notice through court, he preferred not to appear before this court. At one stage, one learned counsel Mr. M.B. Lal appeared in the court on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and prayed for time to file Vakalatnama but even after assurance when no Vakalatnama was filed, this case was heard on merit. 7. At one stage, one learned counsel Mr. M.B. Lal appeared in the court on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and prayed for time to file Vakalatnama but even after assurance when no Vakalatnama was filed, this case was heard on merit. 7. In the instant case, the marriage between the present petitioner no.1 with the opposite party no.2 has not been denied by either of the party and the opposite party no.2 has also admitted the two minor boys as his sons. I have gone through the order impugned and I find that the court below after framing several issues has decided the mandatory requirement of Sub section 1 of Section 125 of the Code, “sufficiency of means” of the opposite party no.2. In Para 6 of his evidence in court below, the opposite party no.2 has admitted that he is getting Rs.60,000/per month towards his salary. In Para 13 this witness has stated that his parents resides with him and he spends money on his treatment also. Neither in his pleading nor in his evidence in court below, this witness has even whispered that the present petitioner no.1 has any independent source of income rather she has stated in her evidence as well as in her petition for maintenance that she has no independent source of income and she alongwith her two children are fully dependent upon the income of her father. The opposite party no.2 has further admitted in his evidence that his wife is living separately with her father. 8. The proceeding under Section 125 of the Code is of a summary nature. It is a measure of social justice falling within the Constitutional sweep of Articles 15(3) and 39 enacted to protect weaker sections like women and children or even old parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. The object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children as well as old invalid parents so that they are not left beggared and driven to a life of immorality and crime for their subsistence. The court while granting maintenance has to look into and consider (i) the position and status of the parties (ii) reasonably wants of the claimant towards food, clothing, shelter etc. (iii) the income of the respondent i.e. the husband (iv) income of the claimant etc. The court while granting maintenance has to look into and consider (i) the position and status of the parties (ii) reasonably wants of the claimant towards food, clothing, shelter etc. (iii) the income of the respondent i.e. the husband (iv) income of the claimant etc. (v) the past life of the married parties and the family (vi) the reasonable view of change of circumstances and (vii) the mode of living and class of life of the parties. In a case Ekradeshwari Vs. Homeshwar, A.I.R. 1929 PC 128, the privy council while deciding the issue of maintenance held that maintenance depends upon several facts. 9. Apparently, the court below while granting maintenance has not considered the above factors. It is true that there cannot be any measuring rod to measure the living standard of any person but in the present day when there is a remarkable improvement in the standard of life of every person, the amount granted as maintenance to the petitioners appears to be not in consonance with the monthly salary of the opposite party no.2. That this court sitting in revision has a very limited scope to reappreciate the evidence available on record and to go against the findings recorded by the trial court but in the admitted fact that the husband is getting a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/with perks and enhancement of his dearness allowances on a definite interval, this Court after examining the issue judiciously, feels proper to enhance the amount of maintenance granted by the court below. 10. In the light of the above discussion, this revision application is, hereby, allowed. The amount of monthly maintenance of Rs.7000/granted by the court below is, accordingly, enhanced and modified and the opposite partyManish Ranjan is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/to his wifethe petitioner no.1 with immediate effect i.e. from the date of this order. Since there is no prayer to enhance the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the two minor sons, it would not be proper to interfere in that part of the order impugned.