Umashankar Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The husband has challenged the order dated 08.10.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 65 of 2013 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1000/- each to his minor son and the daughter, the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein, for their monthly maintenance.

The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded to his wife and the children is excessive and disproportionate to his income.

In her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant, who is opposite party no. 2 in the present proceeding, has stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized about 13 years ago at Koderma and from the wedlock one son and a daughter were born.

After birth of the daughter the petitioner started demanding dowry and he had already solemnized second marriage and from the said wedlock he had a son but suppressing his first marriage he married her. She has further alleged that her husband has removed her as his nominee from the L.I.C policy and neglects to maintain her and her children. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 65 of 2013, she has examined three witnesses and her husband has also examined three witnesses. The applicant no. 1 who has examined herself as A.W.2 has reiterated her stand as taken in her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her father who was examined as A.W.1 has deposed in the Court that her daughter was assaulted by her husband and finally she was driven out from her matrimonial home. Both A.W.1 and A.W.3, have stated that at the time when the wife of the petitioner filed the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she was staying with her children in her parental house and her husband had refused to maintain them. The petitioner who has been examined as O.P.W.3 has taken a stand that his wife was not residing with him without any just excuse, she used to fight with him for partition of the properties and he was paying Rs.5000/-per month to her for her maintenance. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma has held that the wife of the petitioner has valid and reasonable reasons for not residing with him and she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her children.

The petitioner was working as Headmaster in the Middle School and getting salary of Rs.45000/- per month. He has landed properties and income from agriculture. Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has retired from service and getting pension of Rs.11,475/- and he has to take care of his other wife and the son born from the wedlock with her, who is suffering from serious disease.

The learned counsel further submits that the opposite parties are living in the petitioner's house and he is maintaining them as well. But from the records all that I gather is that the petitioner had been paying Rs. 5000/- per month to his wife for maintenance. Therefore, on his own saying Rs.5000/- is the minimum amount which is required for maintaining opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and while adjudicating claim of a wife and the minor child for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Courts are required to keep in mind the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In “Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others” reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed :

“ 9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause — the cause of the derelicts.”

In a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to provide maintenance to a wife just sufficient for her mere survival but the amount of monthly allowance should be such as to enable a wife to live with reasonable comforts. The plight of a wife worsens when she has to maintain her children without any help from her husband and, therefore, this has to be kept in mind that a wife who is constrained to leave her marital home does not feel that she has fallen from grace and care should be taken to ensure that she does not have to move hither and thither arranging for her sustenance. In “Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (SMT) Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Others” reported in (1997) 7 SCC 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in prosecuting her case.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is not excessive and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter at the instance of the petitioner.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2016 is dismissed.

I.A No. 2137 of 2016 stands disposed of.