The High Court dismissed the Cr. Revision seeking to set aside a maintenance order, holding that there was no illegality in the Family Court's assessment. The court refused to entertain the application as the petitioner failed to properly bring to notice the wife's employment status or file a show-cause notice below.
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. Revision No. 1439 of 2015
Manjur Alam, Son of late Jahur Alam, Resident of village-Telo, P.O. & P.S. Nawadih, District-Bokaro. .......Petitioner
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP -----
03/6.9.2017. Heard the parties.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.7.2015 passed in Maintenance Petition No. 30 of 2014 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance to his wife and Rs.500/- to each of the minor children residing with the O.P. No. 2.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party no. 2 is an elected Mukhiya of Telo Panchayat and has sufficient income to maintain herself and her children. It has further been submitted that petitioner earns an amount of Rs.4,000/per month and the quantum of maintenance, which has been fixed by the learned court below, is on the higher side. It has also been submitted that the fact that O.P. No. 2 is an elected Mukhiya has been suppressed before the learned court below.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner has annexed the documents, which would show the income and expenditure. It has further been submitted that if O.P. No. 2 was indeed elected as a Mukhiya, same could have been brought to the notice of the learned court below. It has also been submitted that petitioner had never filed show cause before the learned court below and therefore on proper assessment of the income of the petitioner of Rs.25,000/-/, amount of maintenance has been awarded in favour of O.P. No. 2 and her minor children.
It is an admitted fact that maintenance case filed by the O.P. No. 2, reveals the allegation made by the O.P. No. 2. It has also come that O.P. No. 2 was divorced by the petitioner and then subsequently
marriage was solemnised with the petitioner once again and thereafter she was kicked out from her matrimonial house. Although petitioner has referred to several documents, which relates to income and expenditure, but the said documents were never produced before the learned court below and petitioner had not taken any efforts to file show cause or get the copy of the documents exhibited. Even the evidence of the petitioner suggests that he had not taken the plea before the learned court below that O.P. No. 2 is an elected Mukhiya of Telo Panchayat.
So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, same has been allowed on proper assessment of the income and expenditure of the petitioner. Even otherwise, maintenance amount, which has been allowed in favour of O.P. No.2 and her minor children, is quite a meager amount considering the present day economic scenario. In such circumstances, therefore, there being no illegality committed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in his order dated 15.7.2015, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
Let Lower Court Records, which have been called for, be sent back immediately.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Rakesh/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Cr. Revision should be entertained despite suppression of material facts regarding income and O.P. No. 2's employment status before the Family Court.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is proper on the assessment of the petitioner's income.
Manjur Alam
The State of Jharkhand
Samina Khatoon
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
