The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 703 of 2022 ----------- Priyanka Chattaraj @ Priyanka Mohanta @ Priyanka Chattaraj Mohanta, aged about 21 years, Wife of Raj Kumar Mahanta, Resident of Hariajam Nirsa, Post-Nirsa, P.S.- Nirsa, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. Versus 2. Raj Kumar Mohanta, S/o Bablu Mahanta, Present Resident of 3rd Battaliaon, the Rashtriya Rifles 56 APO Jammu & Kashmir 934503, Permanent Resident of Village- Harirampur, P.O.-Hat Ashuria, P.S.- Barjora, District- Bankura (W.B.) Pin- 722204 … … … Opp. Parties With Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2023 ----------- Raj Kumar Mahanta @ Raj Kumar Mohanta, aged about 32 years, S/o Bablu Mahanta Village- Harirampur, P.O.-Hat Ashuria, P.S.- Barjora, District- Bankura (W.B.) … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Priyanka Chattaraj @ Priyanka Mohanta @ Priyanka Chattaraj Mohanta, aged about 25 years, Wife of Raj Kumar Mahanta @ Raj Kumar Mohanta, Resident of Hariajam Nirsa, P.S.- Nirsa, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … … Opp. Parties ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI In Criminal Revision No. 703 of 2022 ------- For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, A.P.P. : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Miss. Shipra Sonam, Advocate In Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2023 For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2 ------ C.A.V. on 10.05.2024 : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate Pronounced on 19.07.2024 1. Above said both criminal revisions are directed against the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 263 of 2019 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad, whereby the court has allowed the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C and directed the husband to pay total amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month (Rs. 7,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 7,000/- per month to minor children), as maintenance allowance regularly on or before 10th day 1 of each month. Further, it has been ordered to pay the maintenance from the date of order and a lump-sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. 2. The criminal Revisions No. 685 of 2023 has been preferred by Raj Kumar Mahanta @ Raj Kumar Mohanta (husband) for reduction of quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad vide order dated 20.06.2022, whereas the above said Criminal Revision No. 703 of 2022 has been preferred by Priyanka Chattaraj @ Priyanka Mohanta @ Priyanka Chattaraj Mohanta (wife) for the enhancement of maintenance and giving of maintenance from date of application and not from the date of order as Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad has awarded vide order dated 20.06.2022. 3. As above said revisions arise out of impugned order dated 20.06.2022 in Original Maintenance Case No. 263 of 2019, therefore, both the revisions were being heard together and is being decided by common order. 4. As far as factual matrix of the present case is concerned in nutshell, it is the case of Priyanka Chattaraj @ Priyanka Mohanta @ Priyanka Chattaraj Mohanta (wife) who has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhanbad stating therein that she got married with one Raj Kumar Mahanta @ Raj Kumar Mohanta (husband) according to Hindu rites and customs on 06.12.2015 at Nirsa, Dhanbad and Raj Kumar Mahanta @ Raj Kumar Mohanta (husband) was/is serving in Indian Army on the post of Havildar clerk (Staff Duty) and just after six months of the marriage, her husband and in-laws started demanding dowry from her and on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, she was tortured mentally and physically by her husband and in-laws, as such, she has filed a complaint case being C.P. Case No. 3650 of 2018 at Dhanbad under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against them. It has also been contended in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that out of wedlock the couple was blessed with a male child namely Sayan Mohanta. She was compelled to leave her in-laws’ house and she was not maintained by her husband which prompted her to bring petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhanbad. 5. After issuance of notice, husband put his appearance and filed reply rebutting the assertions made by his wife. Petitioner (wife) to prove her case examined herself as P.W. – 1 and her father as P.W. – 2. 2 It is required to be noted that P.W. – 1 has been cross-examined at length but P.W. – 2 has not been cross-examined and he was discharged by the court. Husband has also examined himself as D.W. – 1 and he also got examined his widow sister as D.W. – 2 and one independent witness as D.W.- 3 in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After appreciation of the material available on record, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad allowed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the wife by directing the husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the minor child. The amount will be paid before 10th of each succeeding month. The maintenance amount will be payable from the date of order. He was further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- lump sum amount as litigation cost.
Legal Reasoning
Submissions of learned counsel for the wife in both the revision petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the wife confined her argument for enhancement of quantum of maintenance on the premise that husband has himself admitted in his cross-examination that his gross salary is more than 51,000/- and despite that learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Dhanbad directed husband to pay only Rs. 7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 7,000/- per month to minor child which is very meager amount and it cannot be possible for them to survive. 7. Further other limb of argument on behalf of the wife is that, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Dhanbad has directed for payment of the maintenance from the date of the order i.e. 20.06.2022 but no reason has been assigned that why the said amount of maintenance has not been given in favour of wife and her minor son from the date of filing of application under Section 125 CrPC. 8. Learned counsel to buttress her argument brought notice of this Court towards the case titled as Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that maintenance amount should be awarded from the date of filing of application and not from the date of order. 9. Further, to fortify the stand of wife, learned counsel for the wife pointed out the evidence available on record and also the salary certificate of husband which has been brought on record on behalf of the wife where the 3 gross salary of husband has been shown as Rs. 51308/-. Before concluding her argument, learned counsel for the wife submitted that aforesaid submissions has to be considered by this Court on behalf of wife in Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2023 where wife is respondent/opposite party no. 2. Submission on behalf of the husband in both the revision petitions: 10. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submitted that it has come on record that the wife wanted to live at her parental home and was compelling the husband to accompany her at in his in-laws house, to which husband did not agree and this resulted into matrimonial discord between them and on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry, a case under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC were lodged by the wife. 11. Learned counsel further drew attention of this Court towards the salary certificate brought on record in the present revision proceeding in Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2022 and submitted that net amount of Rs. 23,460/- is being received by the husband out of which husband was paying installment of Rs. 6,510/- as EMI per month for personal loan from SBI and Rs. 3082/- for EMI per month of two wheeler loan from IDFC Bank and after giving maintenance to wife and children i.e. 14,000/- total amount comes to Rs. 23,592/- which is more than the net payment what husband received from the office per month. 12. Further, learned counsel for the husband pointed out towards the evidence brought on record in the proceeding under Section 125 CrPC and submitted that husband being only son he has to look after his parents and his widow sister and one minor daughter of the said widow sister (niece, minor daughter of widow sister). 13. Learned counsel further consistently submitted that husband was/is ready to keep his wife and son with him but it is the wife who is not joining the company of her husband without any cogent reason as such no liability of giving maintenance should be foisted upon the shoulder of the husband. ANALYSIS 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of 4 the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad. 15. As far as marriage between the parties, birth of a baby boy out of wedlock and employment of husband in Indian Army are concerned, it is admitted fact in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This is also admitted that one complaint case being Compliant Case No. 3650 of 2018 has been filed under Section 498A IPC against the husband and in-laws of wife which is pending. As far as, the fact of leaving of matrimonial home is concerned, wife has brought on record by making contentions in the petition under Section 125 CrPC and also in the evidence that six months after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on the pretext of not bringing the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Wife has deposed in her testimony that at the time of birth of son, total expenses were borne by her father and even for celebrating functions after the birth of her son at her matrimonial home Rs. 30,000/- was given to her father-in-law. 16. The above said fact has not been categorically rebutted by husband at the time of cross-examination of wife rather, in his evidence husband has brought on record that wife wanted to live at her parental home and even husband was compelled to accompany her and when this proposal was not accepted by the husband, wife left the matrimonial home. 17. This Court has also gone through the impugned order 20.06.2022 where learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad has come to the finding that there was compelling circumstances for the wife to leave her matrimonial home. Undoubtedly, husband being employed in Indian Army bound to pay maintenance to his wife and son. 18. As far as quantum is concerned, during the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wife has brought on record the salary certificate of July, 2020 of the husband and the learned Additional Family Judge, Dhanbad after considering the same, passed the impugned order 20.06.2022. 19. Even during course of the argument, it has been pointed out on behalf of the husband that gross income of the husband is Rs. 57,266/- and one photocopy of his salary certificate dated 05.02.2023 appended to the paper-book of Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2023 as Annexure - 2 shows salary detail of Raj Kumar Mahanta @ Raj Kumar Mohanta (husband) which is quoted hereinunder: 5 20. The above mentioned salary slip of the husband does not speak about the other liabilities of the husband but shows that provident fund deduction is to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and EMI Rs. 6,510/- per month on account of personal loan of the husband w.e.f. 03rd August, 2020, whereas Rs. 3,082/- EMI per month on two wheeler loan from IDFC Bank w.e.f. 04th November, 2021. Apart from that other deductions are shown in the above table. As far as personal provident fund is concerned, this amount appears to be not compulsory/mandatory deduction as it is more than 50% of the basic pay of the husband. 21. From perusal of Lower Court Records, it transpires that petition under Section 125 CrPC has been filed in the month of 03.05.2019 and husband put his appearance in the matter and had filed reply on 29.07.2019. 6 22. As far as payment of aforesaid two EMI’s are concerned, the payment date of EMIs clearly shows that the above said two loans were taken by the husband after the proceeding started under Section 125 CrPC and husband had filed his reply in the said proceeding but the husband has nowhere assigned any reason in his evidence that for what purpose he had taken personal loan. Deduction of Rs. 20,000/- in Personal Provident Fund, which is more than 50% of the basic salary of husband and payment of two EMIs of Rs. 6510/- and Rs. 3082/- for two loans taken by husband after his participation in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that these liabilities (financial) has been taken by husband with a purpose to diminish the maintenance amount as claimed by his wife for herself and her child. 23. This Court is of considered view that by savings exorbitant amount in his Personal Provident Fund and siphoning of money by making payment of EMIs, husband did so with an oblique motive to diminish the amount of maintenance of the wife and son. The husband cannot wriggle out his statutory liability by way of availing loans and reducing substantial amount of his salary for re-payment of the same every month. Deductions are made from the gross-salary towards long terms savings, which a person would get back at the end of the service. 24. The compulsory amount is to be deducted are income tax and professional tax but the provident fund contribution, house rent, personal loans, LIC premium etc. are all deductions accruing ultimately to the benefit of the husband. These amounts cannot be and should not made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount and these are not the ground to reduce the quantum of maintenance. 25. It is apparent from the impugned order 20.06.2022, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad has directed to pay for Rs. 14,000/- per month (Rs. 7,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 7,000/- per month to minor children). Husband’s widow sister got examined as D.W. – 2 in 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding who has stated categorically that she is dependent on her brother. Husband has taken a plea that apart from wife and daughter, he has to take care of his parents, widow sister and her minor daughter. 26. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of considered view that maintenance as awarded by learned Additional Family Court - II, 7 Dhanbad is most reasonable one and no interference is required by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 27. From perusal of impugned order dated 20.06.2022, it transpires that learned Additional Family Judge has directed for payment of Rs. 14,000/- from the date of order but no reason has been assigned by the learned Family Court that what prompted the court to award maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of filing of application. 27. It has been held in the case of Rajneesh vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 wherein the Apex Court has specifically held and directed all the courts that maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing of the application. Para - 110 and Para – 113 are quoted hereinunder:- 110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839], this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321: (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200], this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in the case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application. 113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. 28. In view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court impugned order dated 20.06.2022 is, hereby, modified to the extent that the maintenance as awarded by the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad vide order dated 20.06.2022 shall be from the date of filing of application i.e. on 03.05.2019 and not from the date of order. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion made above, this court finds no merit in Criminal Revision No. 703 of 2022 for enhancement of the maintenance amount and as such Criminal Revision No. 703 of 2022 is hereby modified to the above extent. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 703 of 2022 is partly allowed. 8 30. In above-stated background, this Court is of considered view that amount as awarded by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad vide order dated 20.06.2022 is most reasonable one and there is no any reasons for this revisional Court to interfere with the impugned order. 31. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2023 is hereby dismissed. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/- A.F.R. 9