AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner, Kusum Thakur, being the wife of Respondent-Surender Singh Kadian herein, has come up before this Court, assailing the orders dated 29.04.2019 [Annexure P-3], passed by the Learned Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra [HP] in CNR No-HPKA01-001678 -2019, titled as Kusum Thakur versus Surender Singh Kadian [referred to as the Impugned Order] awarding a meagre maintenance amount of Rs 5000 per month from the date of filing of the petition on 09.03.2011, against the claimed amount of Rs 20000 per month from respondent herein.
FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE LEARNED FAMILY COURT:
Petitioner, Kusum Thakur, filed petition before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, later transferred to the Learned Family Court(s), claiming maintenance of Rs 20000 per month from her husband, the Respondent-Sunder Singh Kadian, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure [referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C. herein’], with averments that their marriage was solemnized on 19.09.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is averred that after about one month of their marriage, the behavior of the family members including respondent became indifferent towards petitioner. She was tortured on various grounds including bringing less dowry. It is averred that High Court of H.P.after her marriage, the petitioner accompanied the respondent to Chalwara [Jawali], where he was working as a Lecturer in Kanta College of Education but after about two months of their marriage, her husband, moved for a new job in a College in Dibra and Mansa and though the petitioner had accompanied the respondent at aforesaid places but she was kept as a slave and was not allowed to move out of the house. It is averred that the respondent had married twice earlier who were divorced and the petitioner is the third wife of the respondent. It is averred that the respondent used to torture, taunt and beat the petitioner but on eve of their marriage anniversary on 19.09.2010, the respondent came home excessively drunk and turned the petitioner out of her matrimonial home. It is averred that due to persistent acts of cruelty, torture, taunting and beatings, the petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial home. It is averred that respondent is a post graduate and he had passed National Eligibility Test (NET) and Ph.D and had served as a Principal/Lecturer in Mai Bhaga College of Education For Women at Mansa and was earning Rs 50000 per month and her husband owns a house at Kurukshetra [Haryana] besides having rental income from another house at Chalwara in District Kangra (HP) whereas the petitioner-wife has no sufficient means of income and she has no independent source of income to run her daily life and she was unable to maintain herself. In this backdrop, the petitioner filed a petition before Learned Family Court on 09.03.2011, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance of Rs 20000 per month.
2(ii). Respondent, Surender Singh Kadian, contested the proceedings before Learned Family Court, by vaguely denying the allegations but he admitted that he remained posted as Lecturer in Kanta College of Education at Chalwara. It is averred that he has divorced two wives earlier and petitioner was his third wife. It was averred that the petitioner runs two parental shops of Shawls at Bodha [in Nurpur in District Kangra] and the petitioner had independent income from these shops. It was averred that though he has served as Lecturer but he had left the job and he was presently serving as a teacher in Shiva School and was getting Rs 6000/- per month. It is averred that in terms of the orders passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No 1, Dharamshala on 07.12.2016, he is giving interim maintenance of Rs 3000 per month to the petitioner-wife. In this backdrop, the respondent opposed the claim of the petitioner in proceedings before Family Court concerned.
2(ii). Learned Family Court passed the final order on 29.04.2019, Annexure P-3, {referred to as the Impugned Order] awarding Rs 5000 per month to the petitioner from the date of filing the petition for maintenance on 9.3.2011 after adjusting interim maintenance amount granted in terms of the orders passed on 07.12.2016.
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.04.2019 GRANTING MEAGRE MAINTENACE AMOUNT:
The Impugned Order dated 29.04.2019, Annexure P-3, has been assailed in the instant proceedings, by filing Cr MMO No 782 of 2019 on 23.10.2019 [converted as Cr. Revision [FC] No 60 of 2024], primarily on the ground, that though the proved income of the Respondent-husband at the relevant time was Rs 50000/-per month and the petitioner-wife had claimed the maintenance of Rs 20000/-per month but the award of Rs 5000 per month, was meagre, is unduly low and the impugned order was thus contented to be perverse, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.
Heard, Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner, whereas the Respondent-husband was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 17.07.2025.
ANALYSIS:
Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the records, this Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Order passed by Learned Family Court on 29.04.2019 entitling the petitioner for monthly maintenance is upheld whereas the Impugned Order granting a meagre-unduly low amount of monthly maintenance deserves to be modified, and the petitioner-wife is held entitled for maintenance at the enhanced rates, for the following reasons:
ENTITLEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE UPHELD:
5(i). Material on record goes on to establish that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 19.09.2009. No issue was born out of their wedlock. Undisputedly, the petitioner had solemnized marriage on two earlier occasions but earlier marriages were annulled by a decree of divorce. Petitioner is the third legally wedded wife as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. It is established from the record that on the eve of their marriage anniversary, on 19.09.2010, the respondent turned out the petitioner from the matrimonial home after reaching home excessively drunk and giving beatings to her. Even, factum of torture, taunting, demand for dowry, beatings were proved, establishing cruelty on the part of the respondent and these unlawful acts forced the petitioner-wife to leave the matrimonial home.
Deposition of petitioner-wife, PW 1-Kusum Thakur establishes persistent acts of cruelty by respondent -husband forcing the petitioner-wife to leave the matrimonial home/company of respondent. Evidence on record establishes that petitioner-wife, has no independent source of income and she was unable to maintain her and she had no moveable or immoveable property. Even the suggestion given by respondent-husband that the petitioner was running business of shawl from two shops was specifically denied, with deposition that those two shops were owned by her father, who has four daughters to support. Testimony of the petitioner-wife, as PW1, goes on to establish that the respondent-Surinder Singh Kadian served as a Lecturer in Mai Bhaga College of Education Mansa and was drawing a salary of Rs 50000/- per month as per the bank statement. Testimony of the petitioner was supported by PW-2 Jagan Nath who deposed that the petitioner was residing in a rental accommodation. PW-3 Parkash Singh, a representative of the college, has proved salary-statement, Ex CW 3/A, by deposing that respondent-husband, Surinder Singh Kadian has served as a Lecturer in Sant Baba Hazara Singh College Gurdaspur, Punjab and was receiving salary of Rs 50000/- per month. Even Respondent-husband in his cross-examination has admitted that he was working as Lecturer in Baba Hazara Singh College Gurdaspur [Punjab] and was getting a salary of Rs 50,000/-per month. Plea set up by Respondent-husband that he had left the earlier job and was earning Rs 6000/-per month as a teacher in Shiva School remained un-established. Nothing has been placed on record by respondent -husband to establish that he was working as a teacher and was earning Rs 6000/- per month from Shiva School.
In instant case, the Respondent-husband was bodily-abled and was not incapacitated from earning, was qualified, was employed at relevant time and had earnings from salary and other sources but due to unlawful acts of cruelty and neglect and refusal by the husband to maintain her, the wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. On other hand, the wife was unable to maintain herself and she was not having any independent source of income. In the aforesaid circumstances, for the purpose of ameliorating the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish suffered and to prevent the wife from going hither and thither arranging for her sustenance and in order to give effect to the absolute right of wife for maintenance and the wife has not entailed any of the disqualifications, so as to disentitle her for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC or any corresponding law, then, the husband cannot be permitted to carve out or devise an escape route to defeat the social purpose or to deprive the wife for maintenance cannot sustain.
Consequently, in fact-situation of instant case, the Impugned Order passed by Learned Family Court on 29.04.2019 Annexure P-3, entitling petitioner-wife for monthly maintenance is upheld; and moreso, when, Respondent-husband has chosen not to assail these orders and same have attained finality.
Before dealing with the issue, as to whether the quantum of maintenance awarded in instant case, which is contented to be meagre and unduly low, is liable to be interfered with, it is necessary to have a recap of the mandate of law outlining the broad parameters to be borne in mind, while determining quantum of maintenance awardable to wife, in following terms:
MANDATE OF LAW ON QUANTUM OF MAINTAINENCE:
6(i). While dealing with the object of Section 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C., the Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Fuzlunbi vs K. Khader Vali and another, (1980) 4 SCC 125, has mandated that the amount paid by way of maintenance or one time settlement must be reasonable and not illusory and such amount has to be realistically sufficient to maintain the wife and salvage her from destitution, is anathema of law in the perspective of social justice, in the following terms:
18.We are, therefore, inclined to the view that even by harmonizing payments under personal and customary laws with the obligations Under Sections 125 to 127 of the Cr.P.C. the conclusion is clear that the liquidated sum paid at the time of divorce must be a reasonable and not an illusory amount and will release the quondam husband from the continuing liability, only if the sum paid is realistically sufficient to maintain the ex-wife and salvage her from destitution which is the anathema of the law. This perspective of social justice alone does justice to the complex of provisions from Section 125 to Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6(i-a). Awarding maintenance, is to prevent the wife, who is unable to maintain herself, by leaving her to destiny to resign and to face destitution and vagrancy. A husband who is capable of earning and is bodily abled cannot escape liability to maintain his wife. The amount of maintenance must not be illusionary but should be such as she can live with reasonable comfort, so that she does not feel handicapped, considering her status and mode of life, in the light of the broad principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shamima Farooqui versus Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705, in the following terms:-
16.Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 it has been ruled that:-6……Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636."
18.In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52, wherein it has been opined thus:
"7.An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
19.From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.
6(i-b). Plea of the husband that wife is capable of earning, was negated with the finding that it not the capability of earning of wife but the test is as to whether the wife is actually earning or not. Mere capability of earning is not a sufficient reason to deny fair, just and reasonable amount of maintenance to the wife, as has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and another vs Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199, in following terms:
5.That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the appellant No.1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether the appellant No.1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements.
Merely because the appellant No.1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Family Court.
6(i-c). For determining quantum of maintenance, status of parties; the reasonable needs of wife; factum as to whether the wife is educated and professionally qualified; whether the wife has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether wife was employed prior to marriage; whether the wife was working during subsistence of marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family including the child rearing and looking after adult members of the family and financial capacity of husband; his actual income; reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and dependent family members are required to be taken into consideration for arriving at a proportionate quantum of maintenance to be paid. For determining quantum of maintenance, the standard of living of husband as well as spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living are the broad relevant factors. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income will not absolve him of his bounden obligation to maintain his wife, when, husband is able-bodied and is capable of earning. The amount of maintenance must be reasonable and realistic which should not be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. Sufficiency of quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort in terms of the principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Rajnesh vs Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, in following terms:-
78.The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
80.On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
81.A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
6(i-d). Fair, just reasonable maintenance has to be adjudged by considering the standard of living and impact of inflation in high living costs so as to ensure a fair reasonable and consistent amount proportional to the standard of living of the wife was accustomed, which was neither excessively high nor unduly low but it has to be an amount, enabling the wife to live with reasonable comfort post-separation, as outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Jyot Maini versus Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66, in following terms:-
26.Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post -separation.
6(i-e). While determining the quantum, Courts should make endeavor to ensure a decent standard of living for the wife, but subject to the financial capacity of the husband, as per the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parvin Kumar Jain versus Anju Jain (2025) 2 SCC 227, in following terms:-
46.It is not disputed that the appellant has the legal obligation as well as the financial capacity to maintain the respondent after dissolution of the marriage. As held by us in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66, it is also necessary to ensure that the amount of permanent alimony should not penalize the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife.
6(i-f). For attaining social justice, the quantum of maintenance must not be meagre or unduly low and excessively high and inflationary cost of living needs to be considered in the context of financial capacity of husband and the reasonable needs of the wife. Based on this principle, and after arriving at a fixed amount of maintenance, an enhancement @ 5% every two years in view of the inflationary costs can be awarded, as per the mandated of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakhi Sadhukhan vs Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259, in following terms:-
7.Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision.
The respondent-husband’s income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.
8.In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife.
This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son’s right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
6(i-g). While determining the maintenance, the primary consideration is to award an amount which would enable the wife to sustain herself with reasonable degree of dignity, consistent with the status of the parties; and determination of maintenance has to be fair and reasonable after carving out a just balance between the competing consideration, as has been spelt out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Joshi vs Gaurav Joshi 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597, in the following terms:
16.The obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. Viewed thus, deductions on account of asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to substantially dilute the respondent’s real earning capacity for the purpose of determining maintenance. We are of the opinion that a sum of ₹25,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the present case.
MEAGRE AND UNDULY LOW AMOUNT OF MAINTAINENCE REQUIRES REVISION:
6(ii). Testimony of petitioner-wife as PW-1, and deposition of PW-2 and PW-3 establish that at the relevant time, the respondent-husband had an earning of Rs 50000/- per month, in terms of the proved salary certificate, Ext CW-3/A, having served as Lecturer in various Colleges of Education i.e. Kanta College of Education, Chalwara and in Mai Bhaga College of Education Mansa and in Sant Baba Hazara Singh College of Education in Gurdaspur, Punjab, besides having income from rentals/other sources. Material on record goes on to establish that petitioner-wife is living separately and she was not having any independent source of income sufficient to support her and based on the wife had claimed maintenance of Rs 20000/-per month, but Learned Family Court has ignored the material available on record, by awarding a meagre, unduly low and disproportionate amount of maintenance of Rs 5000/- per month to the petitioner. Besides this, a perusal of the Impugned Order reveals that the petitioner-wife filed the petition for maintenance on 09.03.2011, in which interim maintenance of Rs 3000/- per month was awarded on 07.12.2016 and the said petition was finally decided by Learned Family Court in terms of Impugned Order on 29.04.2019 [Annexure P-3] by awarding an amount of Rs 5000/-per month as monthly maintenance from the date of application in the year 2011 ignoring the inflationary costs of living in the integrum from 2011 till 2019. Feeling aggrieved, against the passing of Impugned Order on 29.04.2019 by Learned Family Court, in awarding meagre, unduly low and disproportionate amount of maintenance, the petitioner-wife filed Cr MMO No 782 of 2019 on 23.10.2019 [which was converted as Cr. Revision [FC] No 60 of 2024] and this Criminal Revision remained pending for about (7) seven years, till its final adjudication in terms of this judgement.
FOR DETERMINING QUANTUM INFLATIONARY COSTS OF LIVING BESIDES OTHER BROAD FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:
6(iii). Cumulative effect of the factual matrix and the material on record is that the petitioner-wife was made to wait for the outcome of her claim for being awarded a fair, just, reasonable amount of maintenance for more than 15 years [since 2011 till 2026]. The Petitioner-wife cannot be made to sustain at unduly low, meagre and disproportionate and illusory amount of Rs 5000/-per month during these years and even thereafter. Learned Family Court has failed to balance the competing rights and interests of the parties, in the light of the object of social justice envisaged in statutory provisions coupled with material fact that inflationary costs of living has undergone a sea change, as the Cost Inflation Index has risen [from 184 to 384, as per the Notification dated 01.07.2025, issued under the Finance Act by the Income Tax Department] and this material aspect cannot be ignored while determining the quantum of maintenance. Besides the above, this Court in terms of orders dated 07.01.2025 and 25.03.2025, directed the petitioner-wife and the Respondent-husband to file their respective Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. The petitioner-wife filed her affidavit dated 19.02.2025 that her monthly expenses were Rs 20000/- per month whereas her husband was Ph.D. and was in teaching professing, who was earning Rs 100000/-{Rs one lakh, only) per month. Though this Court had passed orders on 01.04.2025 and 22.04.2025, directing the Respondent-husband to file his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities but the respondent-husband has failed to comply with the orders of this Court. The action of respondent -husband in choosing not to file his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities is an attempt to suppress his existing status and income from this Court.
Honesty of purpose is lacking and the same has been frustrated at the behest of husband in the instant case, compelling this Court to draw adverse inference against respondent husband, as per the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs District Judge (1997) 7 SCC 07 [Para 7 thereof].
6(iv). Grant of fixed amount and the periodic enhancement thereon, shall be a step towards ameliorating vagrancy and destitute and ensure a reasonable comfort to the wife, for the reason, that the grant of meagre, illusionary and static amount of maintenance, shall drive the wife to penury. In absence of any mathematical precision for calculating the quantum of maintenance, the amount has to be worked out, with an element of guess work by taking into account all broad parameters and inflationary costs of living, so
as to fulfil the constitutional goal of ensuring the dignity of wife, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to fulfilment of legal compliances and other parameters. Family Court should be alive to granting fixed amount of maintenance and periodic enhancement thereof, in view of inflationary costs of living, in view of the broader principle, approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha and Rakhi Sadhukhan [by giving enhancement @ 5% every two years on the determined fixed amount] while assessing quantum.
CONCLUSION:
In the instant case, the Impugned Order dated 29.04.2019, Annexure P-3, passed by Learned Family Court awarding an amount of Rs 5000/-per month as maintenance to the petitioner-wife from 2011 to 2019, against the claim of the wife for an amount of Rs 20000/-per month, when, the earnings of husband stood duly proved before Family Court; yet, awarding a meagre and unduly low amount of maintenance, by not applying its mind to the evidence on record and the broad parameters evolved by law, establishes perversity. Granting a static amount of maintenance to the wife, during the proceedings before Learned Family Court [from 2011 to 2019] and thereafter during pendency of proceedings before this Court [from 2019 till 2026] cumulatively for last 15 years, adds to the discomfort of wife. Awarding meagre, unduly low, disproportionate and an illusionary amount of maintenance shall definitely add to the woes of the wife, which needs to be remedied in instant proceedings. In the present proceedings the respondent-husband [Surinder Singh Kadian] was proceeded against ex-parte on 17.07.2025 and since then, the respondent-husband has chosen to stay away from present proceedings. Even, the material placed on record in present proceedings by the wife {by way of an affidavit filed pursuant to orders passed by this Court, showing the income of the husband to be Rs 1,00,000 per month} goes unrebutted so as to draw an adverse inference against him.
Given as above, the Impugned Order passed by Learned Family Court on 24.09.2019, Annexure P-3, granting static maintenance amount of Rs 5000/- per month during the pendency of litigations for 15 long years, from 2011 till 2026, is modified, entitling the petitioner-wife to maintenance amount of Rs 5000/-per month from 09.03.2011 till 8.3.2016; and at Rs 7000/-per month w.e.f. 9.3.2016 till 8.3.2021 ; and at Rs 9000/- per month from 9.3.2021 till 8.4.2026 and for enhanced maintenance @ 5% every two years from 9.4.2026, in terms of the broader principles approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakhi Sadhukhan (supra).
No other point was argued/raised.
DIRECTIONS:
In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Revision Petition is allowed, in following terms:
(i)Instant petition, Cr. Revision [FC] No 60 of 2024, titled as Kusum Thakur vs Surinder Singh Kadian, is allowed;
(ii)Impugned Order dated 29.04.2019 Annexure P-3, passed by Learned Family Court Kangra shall stand modified to the extent as indicated in Paras 7 and 8 (supra);
(iii)Respondent husband, Surender Singh Kadian, shall pay maintenance of Rs 5000/- per month to the petitioner -wife, Kusum Thakur from 09.03.2011 till 8.3.2016; and thereafter in view of inflationary costs of living, to pay maintenance at Rs 7000/- per month w.e.f. 9.3.2016 till 8.3.2021; and at Rs 9000/- per month w.e.f. 9.3.2021 till 8.4.2026 and to pay enhanced maintenance @ 5% every two years from 9.4.2026 onwards in terms of the broader principles mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh vs Neha and Rakhi Sadhukhan [supra];
(iv). Respondent shall release arrears as in direction no (ii) & (iii) above after adjusting the amount of interim maintenance already granted in these proceedings or such other proceedings if any, within four weeks from today;
(v). No order as to costs.
In view of above, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly, stand disposed of.