Petitioner challenged maintenance order of Rs.4,500 under CrPC. Court held amount justified as wife neglected and bare minimum needs met, dismissing revision.
Application dismissed; no revision of the lower order warranted.
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. 124 of 2019
Umesh Kumar Saw
… Petitioner
-versus-
--- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
---For the Petitioner : Mr. Shyam Sunder Prasad Kushwaha, Advocate For the State: A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None
5/ 16.01.2020 In this application, the petitioner has challenged the final order passed in Original Maintenance Case No.55 of 2018 on 28th November, 2018 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sells tobacco and earns his livelihood by selling tobacco in a small shop. He submits that four children are residing with this petitioner, thus, the amount of Rs.4,500/- awarded as maintenance is much on the higher side. He submits that thus, the order needs to be revised.
Petitioner is, admittedly, the husband of the opposite party No.2. In the original maintenance case, Court has given a finding after going through the record that the petitioner has failed and neglected to maintain the opposite party No.2.
In view of the aforesaid fact that the wife has been neglected and not being maintained by the petitioner, an amount of maintenance has been fixed at Rs.4,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2. The maintenance sum of Rs.4,500/- is a very meager amount and a bare minimum amount, which a person needs to maintain herself. Admittedly, the petitioner is not maintaining his wife. Wife is residing in her matrimonial home. There is no denial of the relationship of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 as husband and wife. On the above facts, this amount of Rs.4,500/- per month cannot be said to be exorbitant. Even an able bodied unemployed person is supposed to maintain his wife. Thus, I find that the amount of maintenance as assessed by the Court below is absolutely justified and based on evidence, which needs no interference by this Court.
This criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.4,500/- awarded to the wife is exorbitant and requires revision.
Whether the petitioner's submission that the amount is high given his profession as a tobacco seller warrants interference with the lower court's order.
Whether the petitioner's admitted neglect of his wife justifies the maintenance award despite his claim of limited earnings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Umesh Kumar Saw
The State of Jharkhand
Daiji Devi @ Daiji Kumari
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
