1 Soroti Devi @ Soroti Kumari aged about 33 years wife of Radheram Manjhi v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 495 of 2020 1 Soroti Devi @ Soroti Kumari aged about 33 years wife of Radheram Manjhi D/o Ishwar Manjhi 2. Vishnu Baske aged about 8 years son of Radheram Manjhi through her mother and natural Guardian i.e. Petitioner No.1 Soroti Devi @ Soroti Kumari, Both are resident of Ambedkar Colony. Plot No. 05, Qrs. No. 64, P.S. Dhori, P.S Bermo, District - Bokaro. Versus … … Petitioners Radheram Manjhi son of Late Karma Manjhi, resident of village Thakurgoda, P.O. Patka Chumba, P.S. Giddi, District -Ramgarh, at present resident of Chalkari Colony, Qrs. No. 118, P.O. Baidkaro, P.S. Gandhinagar, District Bokaro. … … Opposite parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Opposite party
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Baibhav Gahlot, Advocate --- 09/14.03.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. That the instant Criminal Revision application is arising from the Order dated 29-02-2020 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 145 of 2018 by the Principal Judge, Family court, Bokaro, whereby the learned court has been pleased to partly allow the prayer of the petitioners and directed the Respondent to give a total amount of Rs.8000/- per month to petitioners for their maintenance although Petitioners had prayed for Maintenance of Rs.25000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved only by the quantification of the maintenance amount which has been fixed for the petitioner no. 1 (wife) and petitioner no. 2 (minor son) aged 6 ½ years as back as in the year 2018. The quantum of maintenance as fixed by the learned court is to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- for the wife and the son respectively. The learned counsel has submitted that the opposite party is an employee in Central Coal fields Limited and the salary of the opposite party has been taken to be Rs. 65,000/- per month. The learned counsel has submitted that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the learned Court has taken into consideration that the opposite party was given employment on compassionate ground and 2 he is living with his mother and his elder brother’s family as his elder brother has also expired and therefore the opposite party has moral obligation to maintain the family of his elder brother. The learned counsel submits that the opposite party has legal obligation to maintain his wife and child and the moral obligation to maintain the family members of the deceased elder brother cannot be a ground to award a meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner no. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner no. 2 is a school going child. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1970 (3) SCC 129 (Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar versus Smt. Raj Kumari and Another) and also 2017(3) JCR 106 Hon'ble Supreme Court (Kalyan Dey Chowdhury versus Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy) to submit that at least an amount of 25% of the salary of the opposite party for the wife and 15% of the salary of the opposite party for the child was required to be fixed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in the meantime salary of the opposite party has also increased to Rs. 1.28 lacs (gross salary). 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the opposite party was given appointment on compassionate ground and after he got employment, his elder brother also died and therefore he has a moral obligation to maintain the family of his brother. He submits that the opposite party also has a legal obligation to maintain the wife and children of his deceased brother under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. He also has a legal obligation to maintain her mother. 5. During the course of argument and also from perusal of the impugned order no order for granting maintenance to the wife of his elder brother or to the children of his elder brother has been brought on record. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no such order has been passed so far. The learned counsel has submitted that opposite party has deposed before the learned court that one petition for maintenance was filed by his mother and therefore, he is under an obligation to maintain his mother who does not have any other source of livelihood. The learned counsel has submitted that he is not sure as to whether his mother is getting pension on account of 3 death of his father who was admittedly an employee under Central Coalfields Limited. However, no order regarding maintenance to the family members of deceased brother or to his mother has been brought on record by the opposite party before the learned court. 6. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the learned court has recorded a finding on the basis of evidences that the petitioners had sufficient reason to live separately from opposite party and also recorded a finding that the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance and therefore the opposite party has under a legal duty to maintain the petitioners. While dealing with the quantum of maintenance at paragraph 12, the learned court has taken into consideration that the salary of the opposite party was Rs. 65,000/- per month, but from perusal of paragraph no. 45 of the cross examination of the opposite party, the opposite party has stated that it was not correct to say that in spite of having income of Rs. 60,000- 70,000 per month from CCL, he was not maintaining the petitioners. The learned court while fixing the quantum of maintenance has taken into consideration that the opposite party has got employment on compassionate ground and he was living with his mother and his brother’s family and that the opposite party also has a moral obligation to maintain the family of his deceased brother. This Court is of the considered view that the obligation of the opposite party to maintain his wife and child is not only a moral obligation but also a legal obligation and has nothing to do with the other moral obligations of the petitioner, if any towards the wife and children of his elder brother who expired after the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate appointment on account of death of his father. Accordingly, the impugned order with regards to quantum of maintenance is perverse being on a much lower side when seen in the light of the income of the opposite party no.2 and calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, only an amount of Rs. 6,000/- for the petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- for the petitioner no. 2 has been fixed which is a megre amount and is grossly inadequate. 4 8. The maintenance amount has been directed to be paid from 29.02.2020 and the ad-interim maintenance which was fixed earlier vide order dated 26.06.2019 has been made effective till 28.02.2020. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is inclined to modify the maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000/- per month for the wife, petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month for the son, petitioner no. 2. The enhanced amount of maintenance would be payable w.e.f. 29.02.2020. The arrears of differential maintenance be paid in equal installment of 15 months along with the current maintenance. 10. This order has passed without prejudice to any application for modification of maintenance amount in terms of section 127 of Cr.P.C. which may be filed by either party. 11. This revision is accordingly disposed of only with aforesaid modification of the quantum of maintenance. 12. Let this order be communicated to the concerned Court through FAX/e-mail. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)