Criminal Revision challenging maintenance maintenance quantum awarded by Family Court to wife and daughter. Court dismissed, holding bare minimum amounts not exorbitant and application of principle requiring maintenance irrespective of petitioner's earning status.
Application challenging maintenance judgment dated 6th February, 2019 stood 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. 335 of 2019
Santosh Pathak …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus Maya Pathak …. …. Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
-----FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP ------
02/23.01.2020
Heard the counsel for the parties.
By filing this application, petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 6th February, 2019 in Original Maintenance Case No. 178 of 2017 by which Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- for his wife and Rs. 3000/- for his minor daughter.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that court has not assessed the income of the petitioner while arriving at the quantum of maintenance. He submits that husband is unemployed and thus he is not in a position to pay the aforesaid amount.
After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, I find that relationship of husband and wife is not disputed. The court after assessing the evidence led by the parties concluded that wife is not being maintained by the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The court has awarded Rs. 5000/to his wife as maintenance and Rs. 3000/- to his minor daughter. It is well settled principle that every able bodied person should maintain his wife even if he is not earning. In the case where a person is not earning it is to be seen what is the minimum necessity for the wife and the children to sustain themselves. The court fixed Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/- respectively for his wife and his daughter. This amount is not exorbitant and is bare minimum which is necessary for wife and daughter to sustain themselves. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in the maintenance quantum awarded by the Family Court when the petitioner claims inability to pay due to unemployment.
Whether the principle that an able-bodied person must maintain their wife applies even if the petitioner is convicted and not earning.
Santosh Pathak
Maya Pathak
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
