Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 143 (JHR)

Renu Devi v. Gopal Mahto

2024-02-09

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners –wife and the minor daughter and the opposite party husband in Cr. Revision No. 876 of 2019 and learned counsel for the petitioner –husband and the opposite party no. 2 and 3 i.e., wife and the minor child in Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2019. 2. Criminal Revision No. 876 of 2019 has been preferred by the wife & minor daughter for enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag vide judgment dated 03.04.2019 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016 whereby the opposite party-husband has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioner no. 1-wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2- the minor daughter till her marriage or being capable to earn her livelihood. The aforesaid amount of Rs.2000/- per month (total) shall be received by the petitioner no. 1 wife for maintaining herself and petitioner no. 2. 3. Criminal Revision No. 803 of 2019 has been preferred by the petitioner-husband against the said award of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to be paid to be opposite party no. 2 and 3 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag. 4. It appears that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and both of them have challenged the same order of maintenance dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned court below in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016, one by the husband showing his inability to pay the maintenance amount and another by the wife and the minor daughter for enhancement of the maintenance amount claiming the amount to be a meagre amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Therefore, this Court after hearing both the parties dispose off both the aforesaid criminal revisions by this common order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 and 2 i.e., wife and daughter in Cr. Revision No. 876 of 2019 has submitted that the instant criminal revision has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag did not appreciate the evidences and has awarded a very meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month each to the petitioner no. Revision No. 876 of 2019 has submitted that the instant criminal revision has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag did not appreciate the evidences and has awarded a very meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month each to the petitioner no. 1 wife and petitioner no. 2 the minor daughter, despite of the fact that opposite party husband has sufficient means to maintain them. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is finding it difficult to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. It has further been submitted that all the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the petitioners during course of trial have supported their case and the opposite party Gopal Mahto (husband of the petitioner no. 1 of Criminal Revision No. 876 of 2019) has sufficient means to pay more maintenance amount but the learned court below did not assess properly the financial capacity of the said Gopal Mahto and therefore, the learned court below has fixed a very small amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance. 6. On the other hand the petitioner husband in Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2019 has denied the maintenance on the ground inter alia that the learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that petitioner is a Taxi Driver by profession at Delhi and only earns Rs. 10,000/- per months and, therefore, he would not be able to maintain the opposite parties, since, he has to maintain his another daughter Khushboo Kumari and his parents also. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner husband that both the parties got married in the year 1997 and thereafter a female child Khushboo Kumari was born out of the wedlock, which has been admitted by the husband but the birth of the second daughter namely Jyoti Kumari i.e. opposite party no. 3 of Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2019 has been denied by the husband since the wife- opposite party no. 2 left the house of the petitioner husband on 15.10.2002 without any reasonable cause and she is living adulterous life since then and she had given birth to the female child i.e., opposite party no. 3 Jyoti Kumari in 2004 and as such Jyoti Kumari is not his daughter. 2 left the house of the petitioner husband on 15.10.2002 without any reasonable cause and she is living adulterous life since then and she had given birth to the female child i.e., opposite party no. 3 Jyoti Kumari in 2004 and as such Jyoti Kumari is not his daughter. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner-husband that he has taken divorce with the wife (opposite party no. 2) in Matrimonial Suit No. 42 of 2007 wherein he has obtained the decree of divorce vide order dated 14.02.2008 and therefore, opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are not entitled for any maintenance. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner husband that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged two false cases against him i.e., Complaint Case No. 151 of 2000 in which petitioner was acquitted and thereafter Maintenance Case no 14 of 2005, which was also dismissed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag does not hold good and fit to be set aside. 7. Having heard the parties of both the aforesaid criminal revisions, perused the record of the case. 8. From the deposition of the witnesses and evidences available on record, it is found that the Renu Devi-wife was ousted from her matrimonial home in the year 2004 and the second child Jyoti Kumari was born in the year 2004 and hence the second child Jyoti Kumari was born during the subsisting valid marriage between the parties out of the wedlock between wife petitioner no. 1 and opposite party husband of Cr. Revision No. 876 of 2019. It is also manifest that out of the said wedlock between husband and wife two daughters were born. The elder daughter Khushboo Kumari has become major and younger daughter Jyoti Kumari was about 12 years old at the time of filing application for maintenance. It is further manifest that after second child Jyoti Kumari was born, the wife was ousted from her matrimonial home (sasural) along with her younger child Jyoti Kumari and since the second child Jyoti Kumari was born in year 2004 and decree of divorce is said to have been obtained in the year 2008 against the wife, hence it is evident that second child Jyoti Kumari was born during the existence of valid marriage between husband and wife. Further the plea of the husband is that his wife was living in adultery and the second child is not his child but the husband has hopelessly failed to prove such charges in absence of cogent evidence. Even the husband did not bother to depose during course of the trial of the maintenance case. And thus the contentions raised on behalf of the husband, that the wife is divorcee and she had been living in adultery and the second child Jyoti Kumari is not his child, have no force of law. 9. It is also found that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag has rightly held that in the absence of any cogent material available on record, it has not found any substance in the claim of the husband Gopal Mahto denying the maintenance. The quantum of maintenance as determined by the learned court below is also found to be just and fair as is evident from para 23 of the impugned judgment which is as under: 23. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, according to the evidences available on record on behalf of the petitioners, the opposite-party is a driver by profession driving a vehicle at Delhi earning Rs.12,000/-per month and O.P.W.1 has also admitted that the opposite-party is a Driver by profession. It was stated before this court that the opposite-party is also having an income around Rs.10,00,000/-per annum from agriculture works. However, the petitioners have not brought before this court any documentary evidence regarding landed properties or earnings of the opposite party and there are only oral evidence available on record in this regard. O.P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the opposite-party is a driver by profession, from which he earns about Rs.10,000/-per month. As admittedly the opposite-party is a driver by profession, certainly he comes within the scope and definition of a skilled person. According to the Notification issued by Labour Department No. 2/MW-20-04/2015 Labour 1481 dated 14.08.2015 a skilled person earns Rs.310/-per day which comes to 310 x 26 days = 8060 and as he is also an able bodied person as per the evidence on record he must be earning around Rs.10-15,000/- per month. Admittedly the opposite-party is maintaining his elder daughter and old aged parents. 10. Admittedly the opposite-party is maintaining his elder daughter and old aged parents. 10. In the backdrop of findings of the learned court below, it is found that the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned court below is just and fair i.e., a sum of Rs.1000/- to the wife and a sum of Rs.1000/- to the minor girl child apart from a lump sum amount of Rs. 2000 as litigation cost. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I do not find any merit in instant two criminal revisions preferred by the wife and husband respectively. I also do not find any illegality in the impugned order of maintenance passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016 vide judgment dated 03.04.2019. 12. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revisions are dismissed. It goes without saying that both the parties are at liberty to make their application of alteration of the award of maintenance on the basis of any subsequent new facts and circumstances of the case.