Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 120 (JHR)

Deepak Kumar Tudu @ Deepak Tudu v. Sarla Devi @ Sarala Devi @ Sarala Soren

2020-01-18

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of judgment dated 08.02.2016 passed in Maintenance Petition No.161 of 2013 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance besides Rs.10,000/- in lump-sum towards litigation cost. 2. Mr. Shafique Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grant of maintenance to the opposite party is flowed for two reasons; (i) the opposite party has no reasonable excuse not to live in the company of her husband, and (ii) award of Rs.12,000/- as maintenance is excessive and it would be onerous for the petitioner. 3. In the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the marriage between the parties was not in dispute. The petitioner was married to the opposite party on 04.02.2010 at Jhapra. His wife has claimed that her husband is receiving salary of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month, who is an employee of M/s BCCL and in T.M.S No.137 of 2011, a suit for divorce, he has stated that he is not ready to live with his wife. 4. The petitioner, on the basis of the written statement and deposition of the father and mother of his wife in T. M.S No.137 of 2011 has contended that on her own his wife has left his company without any just excuse. 5. On examination of the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner''s wife has stated in paragraph no.14 of her written statement that, ''in such circumstances it is impossible to live with her husband''. She has further stated that her husband always misbehaved, humiliated and did not provide minimum necessity of life to her. During her examination in the court in T.M.S No.137 of 2011, she has stated that on the pretext of further studies her husband left her at Maike and the petitioner who has been examined in the said proceeding as O.P.W 1 has stated that he will not keep his wife even though she desires to stay with him. 6. On such facts, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad has rightly held that the petitioner''s wife has reasonable grounds not to live in his company. 7. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband who has sufficient income if fails to maintain his wife and children is liable to incur an order for their maintenance. 6. On such facts, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad has rightly held that the petitioner''s wife has reasonable grounds not to live in his company. 7. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband who has sufficient income if fails to maintain his wife and children is liable to incur an order for their maintenance. The object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that a wife and/or children does not live in destitute. The legislative intendment behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it is a beneficial legislation has been taken note of by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It has been held that in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure strict proof of a fact and the rules of evidence may not be insisted upon. In '' Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain'' reported in ( 2017) 15 SCC 801 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus; ''16. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wifes parents is also immaterial. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the court.'' 8. In my opinion, award of Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance by the petitioner who was earning Rs.33,000/- per month is not excessive. 9. In the above facts, finding no merit in this petition, Criminal Revision No.537 of 2016 is dismissed. 10. Accordingly, I.A No.9296 of 2017 stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through ''Fax''.