The revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife was dismissed. The Court held that the quantum awarded was reasonable given the husband's income and inflation.
The High Court dismissed the Cr. Revision, refusing to interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order.
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. 798 of 2015
Sandeep Singh, s/o late Jagat Narayan Singh, r/o village – Koria, P.O. Chapiya, P.S. - Tundi, District Dhanbad … … Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Renu Devi, w/o Sandeep Singh, d/o late Shiv Prasad Singh, r/o village Bhagtudih, P.O. Mahuda, P. S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad
… … Opp. Party
--- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
03/05.03.2018 Heard Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
This application is directed against the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Petition No. 71 of 2014 by which the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party.
It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is the wife of the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage and on account of the same the opposite party had tried to set her ablaze and she was forced to leave her matrimonial house. Thus there appears to be sufficient cause for the opposite party not to stay with the petitioner. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, although the petitioner has claimed that he is a daily wager but in course of evidence opposite party had proved about the fact that he earns a handsome income. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner being the husband to maintain his wife. The amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month which has been awarded in favour of the opposite party is a reasonable amount considering the income of the petitioner as also the rise in price index.
In such circumstance, therefore, no error is detected in the order dated 26.06.2015 and accordingly having found no merit in this application the same stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court committed any error in confirming the Family Court's order directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife.
Whether the awarded maintenance amount is reasonable considering the income of the husband and the rise in price index.
Sandeep Singh
Smt. Renu Devi
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
