Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 369 (JHR)

Renu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-03-12

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
Order : This revision is directed against the order dated 15.03.2012 passed in Maintenance Case NO.143/2010 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby O.P.No.2 was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.5000/-and Rs.3,000/-p.m. each to petitioners no.1 and 2 respectively, as against petitioners' claim of Rs.25,000/- p.m. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite issuance of notice through registered post and ordinary process and publication of notice in the newspaper O.P.no.2 abstained from participating in the proceeding whereafter, on the basis of evidence, the court below has ordered O.P.no.2 to pay maintenance @ Rs.8,000/-p.m. to the petitioners. It is urged that the court below has assessed the income of the O.P. at Rs.40,000/-p.m., considering the fact that he is holding a lucrative job of Customer Care Manager, with Mahindra and Mahindra Company. It is submitted that the court below should have awarded Rs.20,000/-p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary of O.P. as maintenance to be paid by O.P. to petitioners no.1 and 2 i.e. the mother and minor daughter. That amount of Rs.8,000/-p.m. is paltry and a meagre amount considering the status of O.P. and escalation in the cost of living in the present days. 3. Heard. Perused the record. It transpires that notices issued against O.P.no.2, were returned with endorsement that the addressee could not be found. Thereafter publication of notice was made in the newspapers, namely, Pioneer, New Delhi Edition and Hindustan, Patna Edition. Despite publication of notice O.P. has not appeared. It is evident that in the court below also notice was published in the news paper but the O.P. did not appear in the proceeding. 4. On perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the court below has held that O.P. is a mechanical engineer employed on the post of Customer Care Manager with Mahindra and Mahindra Company at Delhi. The monthly income has been assessed at Rs.40,000/-to Rs.50,000/- p.m. 5. It is settled proposition of law that Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted as a measure of social justice to ensure that the dependent, wife and children should be provided support by the husband or a person against whom they have a moral claim to support. The petitioners have established that O.P./husband has sufficient means of income. The word 'unable to maintain herself encompasses the means available to the deserted wife or children while she was residing with the husband. The petitioners have established that O.P./husband has sufficient means of income. The word 'unable to maintain herself encompasses the means available to the deserted wife or children while she was residing with the husband. It means the wife is entitled to the standard of living as per the status and income of the husband. 6. As noticed despite publication of notice in the newspapers the O.P/husband has not appeared in the case. The witnesses have stated that O.P. is holding post of Customer Care Manager with a reputed Company, namely, Mahindra & Mahindra. He is drawing a handsome salary of Rs.40,000/-to Rs.50,000/ -p.m. and the petitioner no.1 along with her minor daughter is dependent on her parents. Petitioner does not have any independent source of income. The O.P. has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and her minor daughter. Considering the escalation in the cost of living and taking into account the salary of O.P., the maintenance amount of Rs.8000/-p.m. appears to be meagre and paltry. The petitioner has to meet the daily expenses of herself and her minor daughter required for fooding, clothing, shelter and education. The O.P. as a husband has the moral and social obligation to provide the maintenance to the petitioner and his minor daughter. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances considering the fact that O.P. is drawing a salary of Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- p.m. it would be just and proper to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000/-p.m. to Rs.10,000/-p.m. for petitioner no.1 i.e., the wife, and from Rs.3,000/-p.m. to Rs.8,000/-p.m. to be paid to petitioner no.2 i.e. the minor daughter. The O.P.no.2 is directed to pay a gross amount of Rs.18,000/-p.m. to the petitioners from the date of the order of the court below i.e. from 15.03.2012. 8. With the said modification in the amount of maintenance, the revision application is hereby allowed.