Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 798 (JHR)

Md. Mahfuj v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-06

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : 1. In this revision application the husband has prayed to set aside the judgment dated 30.01.2015, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Petition No. 30 of 2009 has been pleased to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the son (till attaining majority). 2. The wife Rafat Praveen Soni @ Rafat Parveen Soni filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating there in that, she is the legally married wife of Md. Mahfuj. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born, who is a minor. She states that she was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry by the husband and as the result of which she has completely been neglected by the husband. The husband is working in Air-Force and is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month, she claims maintenance on the ground that the husband has neglected her, in spite of having sufficient means to maintain her. 3. The husband appeared before the Court and filed a show cause stating therein that no dowry was ever claimed by him. He denied the allegations of torture. He further states that he is ready and willing to keep the wife in dignified manner. He further states that since the wife on her own will is not residing with the husband, she is not entitled to any amount of the maintenance. 4. The wife was examined as witness and she supported her case. The husband also adduced evidence and stated that his wife is a highly qualified woman and having degree of M.A./B.Ed. He further stated that the wife is roaming with him and she is making shopping etc. thus the wife is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance. 5. The Court below appreciating the entire materials on record has found that there is a Complaint Case No. 470 of 2009 under Section 323 and 498 A of the I.P.C. The Court below also found that in view of this specific allegation of cruelty and torture and due to the pendency of the criminal case, the wife cannot be directed to resume cohabitation with the husband. The Court below also found that the husband is in regular service of Air Force and thus has awarded an amount of Rs. The Court below also found that the husband is in regular service of Air Force and thus has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor son till he attains his majority. 6. Challenging the said judgments the husband has preferred this revision application. 7. Heard counsel for the both the parties. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the husband that the court below has failed to take in to consideration that the wife is well qualified woman and she is having degree of M.A./B.Ed. and hence she is not entitled to any maintenance. He further submitted that there is no ground for the wife to reside separately and that being so she is not entitled to any amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the Court below has failed to consider the aspects, which are necessary for deciding an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. 10. The learned court below after considering the materials on record has found that there is a pending criminal complaint being Case No. 470 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 323 and 498 A of the I.P.C. The court below also found that due to this specific allegation of the cruelty and torture and pendency of the criminal case, the wife cannot be directed to stay with the husband. This finding is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the wife has reasonable ground to reside separately. 11. In view of the fact that there is a criminal case lodged by the wife for demand of dowry and torture, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable ground for staying separately. I find there are cogent grounds for the wife not to stay with the husband. 12. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is admitted by the husband that he is in the service of Air Force and he himself has stated that his gross salary is Rs. 31,000/- and he is getting Rs. 20,000/- in hand. The court has only directed to pay Rs. 4000/- (for the wife) and Rs. 2000/- (for the minor son) i.e. total of Rs. 6000/- from the salary of the husband/petitioner. 13. 31,000/- and he is getting Rs. 20,000/- in hand. The court has only directed to pay Rs. 4000/- (for the wife) and Rs. 2000/- (for the minor son) i.e. total of Rs. 6000/- from the salary of the husband/petitioner. 13. A quantum of maintenance should be adequated so as to enable the wife to live with dignity, similar to the standard that which she would live in her matrimonial home. The claimant being the wife of a person, who is in service of Air Force, is definitely entitled to get at least Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance and the son at least Rs. 2000/- per month. 14. In that view, the amount, as fixed by the Court below cannot be said to be unreasonable and on the higher side. So far as the submissions made by the petitioner that his wife is well qualified and she is M.A./B.Ed. the same cannot be ground to challenge the quantum. It is not the case of the petitioner that the wife is earning from any source. Merely, having a high qualification does not give rise to any presumption nor can it suggest that the wife is maintaining herself. 15. Further, the court below after considering the entire aspects, has awarded maintenance and it cannot be said that the judgment is without any reasons. 16. On the observations made above, it is held that in view of the fact that the husband, admittedly, is in service of Air Force, a sum of Rs. 4000/- to the wife and Rs. 2000/- to the son has been correctly assessed as maintenance. 17. The impugned order needs no interference. This revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.