Dismissed

Tapas Khawas v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2020Cr.Rev./998/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against a Family Court order. The Court held that voluntary resignation cannot be used to claim unemployment for evading maintenance obligations. It affirmed that an able-bodied person is duty-bound to maintain their family and that the ordered quantum was not exorbitant.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition challenging the maintenance order dated 28.5.2019 for Rs. 9,000/month is dismissed.

Tapas Khawas Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 998 of 2019

Tapas Khawas

... Petitioner(s).

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Rina Khawas … Opp. Party(s).

¶8

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶9

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

¶10

04/23.01.2020:

¶11

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶12

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/judgment dated 28.5.2019 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 333/2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, whereby, maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- per month and Rs.3000/- per month has been ordered to be paid to the wife and the minor daughter of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is unemployed and he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance. He further submits that the amount of maintenance is much on the higher side and the petitioner is unable to pay the said amount. He further submits that the order/judgment impugned is bad as the same has not been passed taking into consideration the evidences adduced by the petitioner.

¶14

After going through the record and the order/judgment impugned, I find that the relationship of the husband and wife has not been disputed. I further find that the parentage of the minor daughter has also not been disputed. The court below after discussing all the evidences led by the parties, reached to conclusion that the petitioner is not maintaining his wife as well as his daughter. There is a complaint case being CP Case No. 1994 of 2018 which was lodged against the husband under Section 498A and other Sections of IPC. The court below has also concluded that there is sufficient evidence which suggests that the petitioner has neglected his wife and daughter. This finding is based on cogent evidence and cannot be said to be perverse and thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings, which has been arrived at by discussing the evidences, led by the parties.

¶15

So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the documents annexed with the application clearly suggest that the take home salary of the petitioner is between Rs. 22,755 to 20,372/-. So far as claim of the petitioner is concerned that he is not earning now, I find that the petitioner has annexed the document, which suggests that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned from service during pendency of the maintenance case, thus no benefit can be

¶16

derived by him of said resignation. The court below has assessed the income of the petitioner basing on the documents. Thus, the court below has rightly assessed the amount of maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month and Rs.3000/- per month to be paid to the wife and minor child, which cannot be said to be exorbitant. An able bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and children. Unemployment can not be an excuse to avoid maintenance.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the court below has rightly assessed Rs.6000/- per month and Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and child respectively justifying that the petitioner is duty bound to maintain his wife. Thus, the assessment of the court below and the quantum of maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous nor the amount is not exorbitant.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order order/judgment dated 28.5.2019 is in consonance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶19

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶20

Anu/C.P.-3

Tapas Khawas v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapas Khawas v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

K D Singh Alias Krishnadeo Singh Alias Krishnadeo Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Pathak Vs Maya Pathak

Munna Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Suresh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand