Parshant vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Aggrieved against an order dated 03.07.2024 passed by learned Family Court No.1, Bikaner vide which Rs.8,000/- to respondent No.2-wife and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.3-daughter, totaling Rs.13,000/- has been awarded as interim maintenance, husband of respondent No. 2 is before this court assailing the same.

Briefly, the relevant facts of the case are as follows: The respondent (wife) was married to the petitioner (husband) on 07.12.2019. Out of their wedlock a daughter – Gunjan, respondent No.3 herein was born. Disputes arose between the couple. After their marriage fell on rocks, it resulted in separation of the parties and the minor daughter (respondent No.3) is currently stated to be in custody of the wife. It transpires that the wife has also filed a criminal case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. Vide impugned order dated 03.07.2024, passed by learned Family Court No.1, Bikaner, interim maintenance has been awarded to the wife and daughter.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and reviewed the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the wife (respondent No.2) is a quarrelsome lady. She is having ornaments worth Rs.5,86,625/- and bank deposit of Rs.4,75,000/-. Respondent No.2 is M.Com pass and capable of earning. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

At the outset, the factual narrative of the case clearly reflects that wife is staying separated, forced by the circumstances and not by her will. In such a situation, it is, therefore, imperative that the petitioner being father and husband should comply with his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife and the minor child instead of abandoning them by taking advantage of separation.

The impugned order passed by the learned Family court is premised to the reasoning that being a conceded position that the respondent No.2 being a legally wedded wife of the petitioner having custody of a minor daughter with no income of her own is completely dependent on her husband. Learned Family Court noted that it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has concealed a bank deposit statement of Rs.4,75,000 and her income tax returns from the court. However, this alone cannot be ground to deny the maintenance. Even if it is assumed that Rs.4,75,000 was deposited into the respondent's bank account in 2021 by her husband and father-in-law, the application for maintenance filed in 2022 cannot be dismissed on this basis. Learned Family Court noted that the respondent No.2, Chanchal, claims that this amount was withdrawn shortly after being deposited by her husband and father-in-law, which is corroborated by her bank statement. Nevertheless, it cannot be conclusively determined at this stage who deposited this amount and with what intent, especially since it was withdrawn immediately thereafter.

6.1 As regards the defence of the respondent No.2, the learned Family Court noted that the income tax returns submitted by the respondent Chanchal indicate income from other sources. The respondent No.2 claims that this income statement was artificially created by her husband/father, while she does not engage in any work or business. There is also no record on file that indicates the respondent is engaged in any employment, business, or tutoring. Similarly, the second respondent, Gunjan, being a minor daughter of the petitioner, has a legal right to receive maintenance from her father.

5.2 Having considered the rival contention of both side, learned Family Court observed / held that the respondent (Prashant) is a probationary officer at a bank, and his salary slip for July 2023 shows a gross income of Rs.73,226.34 per month. Therefore, he is capable of supporting himself, his wife, and his minor daughter Gunjan. It was noted that records indicate petitioner has other obligations. Resultantly, learned Family Court directed that considering the economic, social, and family background of the parties, the husband - Prashant, shall pay the petitioner Chanchal Rs.8,000/-per month for her interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- per month for the interim maintenance of their daughter, Gunjan, totaling Rs.13,000/- as an interim maintenance allowance.

Having perused the impugned order, as above, passed by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that neither there is any irregularity in law nor in facts warranting interference of this Court. In any case, the order is interim in nature and rights of both the parties shall be determined finally at the appropriate stage only after they have been given opportunity to bring forth the material in support of their respective contentions and on that count as well no interference is warranted at this stage.

Needless to say, the husband is legally bound to ensure the financial well-being of his wife. Beyond legal obligations, there is a moral duty to support his wife and their daughter living with the latter. Societal expectations place the onus on the husband to maintain his wife, especially when she may not have independent means of support. The respondent requires adequate financial support to meet her basic needs and maintain a standard of living commensurate with the husband’s economic and social status.

Ensuring interim maintenance fosters equity and fairness, preventing undue hardship to the respondent/wife while the case is pending. She cannot be expected to live in sheer penury or be dependant on her parents and/or other family members.

The learned Family Court rightly observed that qua petitioner’s inability to pay maintenance, such questions can only be decided after adducing of evidence from both parties. At this stage, what has to be essentially seen is whether the separation that has resulted between the parties is willful or forced by the circumstances so as to determine the entitlement qua payment of interim maintenance of the wife and minor child.

There is no proof on record to show that respondent No. 2 has any income of her own. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits at this stage, and taking into account the social and economic status of the parties, the impugned order directing the petitioner to provide monthly interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- (Rs. 8000/-and Rs. 5000/- respectively) to the respondents No.2 and 3 seems just and fair.

In the premise, no grounds to interfere.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.