This judgment dismisses a criminal revision petition challenging a maintenance order. The court held the wife established sufficient evidence to claim maintenance and that the petitioner failed to prove insufficient means, dismissing the revision.
The criminal revision petition Cr. Rev. No.1248 of 2016 is dismissed.
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. 1248 of 2016
Arvind Pandit, son of Sri Laldhari Pandit, resident of Chas, PO&PSChas, District-Bokaro .... ...... Petitioner
Versus
.... ...... Opp. Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Rashmi Lal, Adv.
03/ 24.02.2020
The petitioner has challenged the order
dated 14.06.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No.21 of 2014 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to his wife.
2
mother was taking drugs (u'kk djrh gSA). They have deposed that their father was driving a carriage van. The witnesses examined by the petitioner's wife have spoken about harassment and torture of his wife by the petitioner and his income.
“6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is
not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to
prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can
3
provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat.”
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
R.K.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the maintenance order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife.
Whether the petitioner discharged his burden to show that he does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajathi Vs. C. GanesanExplained¶17
Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 326 · Who else cites this
Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita BaiExplained¶21
Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316 · Who else cites this
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena KaushalExplained¶21
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of GujaratReferred¶21
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind Pandit
Urmila Devi @ Pramila Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
