Though It Is Moral Duty Of Husband To Pay Maintenance, Marriage Should Not Become Felony For Him: Jharkhand HC Reduces Amount Of Maintenance
The Jharkhand High Court held that while it is the moral duty of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife, the awarded amount must be reasonable and realistic, ensuring the dignity of both parties. The petitioner had filed a criminal revision against the order of the Family Court which had directed him to pay Rs.40,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, from the date of her application and to clear all arrear amounts within two months from the date of the order. The wife had claimed this maintenance citing instances of domestic violence, cruelty, and financial dependence.
A Bench of Justice Subhash Chand held, “Certainly, it is moral duty of the husband to pay maintenance to her wife so that she may also reside in the same status as would have been in matrimonial house; but it does not mean to squeeze milk from the husband that the marriage becomes felony for the husband.”
Advocate Ajit Kumar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Shailendra Kumar Tiwari appeared for the Respondents.
The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the Family Court did not consider his actual income and liabilities. He contended that the awarded maintenance amount was unreasonable, unrealistic, and burdensome, given his financial circumstances.
The Court emphasized the need for reasonable and realistic maintenance, ensuring the dignity of both parties. The Court said, “The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the Social Justice and also to ensure the dignity of the individual as enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of the India.”
The Court added, “The maintenance amount awarded by the Court must be reasonable and realistic. The court should avoid either of the two extremes (i). Maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which become oppressive and unbearable for the respondent/husband; and (ii). It should not be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.”
The Court noted, “In the case in hand, as per admission of the O.P. No.2, she has also been filing Income Tax Return for last four years, though she has stated that she has no source of income. The same does not inspire the confidence of the Court that she has no source of income; while she has been filing Income Tax Return.” The Court further noted, “It would also be relevant that O.P. No.2/wife is educated and professionally qualified has independent source of income or not; but the Court has the duty that income of the wife should be so sufficient to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.”
The petitioner's net income from Shri Shakti Infrastructure was considered, along with his loan liabilities and his responsibility towards his ailing mother. The Court said, “The learned Family Court did not take into consideration, the liabilities of the petitioner – Niraj Kathuria while fixing quantum of maintenance, which are evident from the documentary evidence on record.”
Citing Supreme Court case of Chandrashekar v. Swapnil reported in (2021) 12 SCC 624, the Court partly allowed the appeal reducing the maintenance amount to Rs.25,000 per month from the date of the application. The petitioner had already paid Rs.1,20,000 towards arrears, which would be adjusted, and the remaining arrears were to be paid within four months from the date of the order.
Cause Title: Niraj Kathuria v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
