Partly allowed

Nikesh Kumar Jha v. Bhawna Jha

Jharkhand HC11 Nov 2022C.M.P./93/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reduced the petitioner husband's pendente lite maintenance liability for the respondent. It considered the large compensation paid by the petitioner in a criminal case as a factor indicating the respondent's ability to maintain herself, thereby deeming a lower maintenance amount sufficient to serve the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month along with arrears.

Nikesh Kumar Jha Vs Bhawna Jha — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 93 of 2021

¶3

------ Nikesh Kumar Jha .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Bhawna Jha .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate

¶6

Oral Order

¶7

08/ Dated :11.11.2022

¶8

The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 345 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, ad interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been allowed in favour of the opposite party. The petitioner husband being aggrieved has preferred the present petition.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of the present petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party on 08.03.2019 by concealing her previous marriage with one Avisek Kumar which was solemnized on 28.11.2014 and only after two months of the dissolution of earlier marriage, the marriage with this petitioner was solemnized.

¶10

After this fact came to the knowledge to the petitioner, the present suit has been filed for dissolution under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act

¶11

The main ground for filing the instant petition is that in order to pass the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the basic requirement is that the petitioner should not have the sufficient means. However, in the present case, at the time of dissolution of earlier marriage she had received Rs. 15,00,000/- as one time permanent alimony on 04.02.2019 and soon after the present marriage, she filed a criminal case against the petitioner being Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 123 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498A of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which the in-laws and relatives of the petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail on payment of

¶12

Rs.10,00,000/- as ad interim compensation to the opposite party. This amount was paid on 11.02.2020 by the petitioner.

¶13

It is argued that from the amount received by the opposite party from this petitioner as well as from her earlier husband, it cannot be said that she not in a position to maintain herself. Both the parties were earlier working in the I.T. Company and has independent source of income.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party that it is not fact that previous marriage had been concealed and she had independent source of income. It is also submitted that Rs.21,78,000/- had been spent in marriage expenses and any amount received thereafter, cannot be said to be sufficient for maintenance of the opposite party. It is submitted that there is still outstanding due of Rs.40,000/- with respect to the amount already paid by the petitioner in compliance of the order for paying maintenance amount.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions on behalf of both sides and considering the overall facts and circumstances in which Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by this petitioner to the opposite party as ad interim victim compensation at the stage of grant of anticipatory bail application, her pendente lite maintenance amount of Rs.7000/- under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act will serve the ends of justice.

¶16

The petitioner shall make the payment regularly without any default and also the arrears, failing which the learned Court below will take appropriate steps.

¶17

This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of. I.A. No.4961 is also disposed of.

¶18

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Anit

Nikesh Kumar Jha v. Bhawna Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikesh Kumar Jha v. Bhawna Jha

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

Ms Sri Bhagwan Das Laxmi Narayan through Its Proprietor Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal Vs Smt Kiran Agarwal

Ms Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Sri Triloki Singh Vs Rabindra Nath Paul

Ful Mohammad Alias Ful Mohamd Ansari Alias Ful Mohamad Ansari Vs Leyakat Mian

Premangsu Kumar Paul Vs Sudhansu Kumar Paul

Sudarshan Prakash Vs Tarun Anand

Amod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand