High Court allowed revision against a Family Court order granting Rs. 3,000 maintenance. Setting aside the order for arbitrary assessment of income, the matter was remanded for a reasoned decision based on available materials.
Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to lower court to pass fresh order on maintenance quantum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 440 of 2011
Bihari Oraon .... Petitioner
Versus
--CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
Order No. 02 Dated 14th June 2016
Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
This application is directed against the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Case No. M 16/2008 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 1000/- to his minor son.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantum of maintenance is on the higher side as proper appreciation has not been made by the learned court below with respect to the income of the petitioner. The petitioner is a Para Teacher and merely on surmises the conclusion has been arrived at that the petitioner earns Rs. 10 thousand per month and on the basis of which maintenance has been granted to the wife and his minor son.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the petitioner in spite of opportunities did not file the documents relating to his land and this suppression on the part of the petitioner clearly points to the fact that the petitioner earns a substantial amount and which has also been considered by the learned court below.
After considering the rival submissions and by going through the impugned order dated 31.03.2011, it appears that the amount of Rs. 10 thousand which has been finalized by the learned court below does not seem to be on any valid ground. The petitioner in his deposition has clearly stated that he works as Para Teacher and earns Rs. 4 thousand per month. Perhaps the learned court below was influenced by the earnings of the family of the petitioner from cultivation
although no documents were produced by the petitioner. In such circumstances, therefore when the income which has been ascertained by the learned court below seems to be apparently without any basis, the same cannot lead the court to form an opinion while granting a total maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/-.
Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.03.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Case No. M 16/2008 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 1000/- to his minor son, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order with respect to the quantum of the maintenance which must be passed on valid and sound reasonings so far as the income of the petitioner is concerned and on the materials available on record.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower court is sustainable on the materials available regarding the petitioner's income.
Whether the income of a father employed as a Para Teacher supported by family cultivation earnings can be conclusively assumed to be higher without documentary proof.
Bihari Oraon
The State of Jharkhand
Smt. Sushma Oraon
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
