Maintenance Obligations Should Not Burden A Husband To The Point Of Marriage Becoming A Punishment: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Subhash Chand observed,

“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.”

The remarks were made while partly allowing a revision petition filed against an order of the Family Court in Dhanbad whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.40,000 to his wife, starting from the date of her application.

As per the background of the maintenance case filed by the wife, the petitioner and the wife got married in 2018, following Hindu customs. However, soon after their marriage, conflicts arose within the family concerning dowry and domestic violence. Eventually, the wife claimed she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and seek refuge with her ailing parents. She said she was in dire financial straits, struggling to meet even her basic needs and medical expenses.

The wife had alleged that the petitioner, a financially prosperous businessman, earns substantial income from multiple sources, including coal and coke manufacturing plants, and his total monthly income was estimated to be Rs.12.5 lakhs.

Alternatively, the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment was illegal, as the Court had quantified the amount to be paid as Rs.40,000/- without taking into consideration the actual income of the petitioner and without taking into consideration the liabilities of the petitioner. He further contended that the court's decision was unjust, as it failed to consider his actual income and financial obligations. He claimed to be the sole breadwinner for his family, supporting his ailing mother.

In its verdict, the court emphasized that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in India serves the purpose of social justice and safeguarding the dignity of individuals, as outlined in the preamble of the Indian Constitution.

The court highlighted the importance of determining a reasonable and realistic maintenance amount. It stressed the need to strike a balance, ensuring that the maintenance awarded to the wife is not exorbitant, causing hardship to the husband, nor meager, pushing the wife into poverty. The court stated that the objective of granting maintenance is to prevent the dependent spouse from falling into destitution without punishing the other spouse.

In the present case under consideration, the court observed that the wife had, in fact, filed Income Tax Returns for the past four years, despite claiming to have no source of income, which raised doubts in the court's mind regarding her actual financial situation.

The court found that the wife had not disclosed her sources of income. It also considered her education and professional qualifications, aiming to ensure that her income was sufficient to maintain a similar standard of living as in her marital home. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that even if the wife was earning, the husband's obligation to provide maintenance still prevailed.

The court also took into account the petitioner's responsibility to support his ailing mother, who was dependent on him, and criticized the Family Court for not considering the petitioner's liabilities while determining the maintenance amount.

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. The learned Family Court has assessed the income of the petitioner Rs.1.20 lacs to Rs.1.25 lacs monthly from Shree Shakti Infrastructure which was the gross income of the petitioner, not the net income. The learned Family Court has taken into account the landed property in the name of the petitioner at Pasari Barwa, Panduki and Mouza Amaghata totaling to Rs.28,46,529/-; but there is nothing on record that from these properties the petitioner was fetching any income.”

In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the Family Court's judgment had been based on erroneous findings and that the awarded maintenance amount was unreasonable. Consequently, the judgment of Family Court was modified and petitioner was directed to pay Rs.25,000 per month to his wife from the date of application, while the other directions from the Family Court remained unchanged.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

Counsel/s For the State: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P.

Counsel/s For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

Case Title: Niraj Kathuria vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

Case No.: Cr. Revision No.535 of 2022

Click Here To Read / Download Judgment