Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case concerns a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court. The petitioner husband challenged the order dated 24.04.2017 under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the maintenance amount awarded was excessive and unfair, given his current financial circumstances.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place in February 2006, and a son was born in November 2008. Due to alleged domestic cruelty, the wife filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC in 2012. As part of the pre-arrest bail conditions in that case, the husband agreed to pay Rs. 8,000 per month to the wife.

In 2015, the wife filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking Rs. 1,50,000 per month as maintenance for herself and their son. She alleged that her husband was a marine engineer earning around Rs. 5 lakh per month, owned property in Patna, and had agricultural land in his native village. She claimed she had no income and had left her job in 2015 to care for her minor child.

The husband, in response, did not deny his previous earnings as a marine engineer but claimed he had lost his job due to the criminal case filed against him. He stated he now worked in a private firm with a salary of only Rs. 12,000 per month and already paid Rs. 8,000 as per court order. He also alleged that the wife was working as a teacher in a private school.

The Family Court, after considering both sides, granted the wife Rs. 12,000 per month (including the Rs. 8,000 she was already receiving) and Rs. 3,000 per month for the child, along with Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs.

In the High Court, the husband raised multiple grounds:

• The wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home.
• His current income was too low to meet the maintenance order.
• The wife was employed and earning more than him.

The Hon’ble Court rejected all these contentions. It observed:

• Just because the wife left the matrimonial home after cruelty allegations does not mean she forfeits her right to maintenance.
• The petitioner had failed to produce any documentary proof of his current job or reduced salary.
• No evidence was shown that the wife was currently employed.

The Court cited Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the duty of a husband to provide for his wife and children. It noted that a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to provide immediate relief and is not meant for in-depth analysis of allegations.

Ultimately, the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the Family Court’s decision was justified and dismissed the petition. It emphasized that an able-bodied, educated man cannot use job change or legal proceedings as an excuse to deny financial support to his dependents.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance is a legal right of spouses and children who are unable to support themselves. The judgment underscores that even if a husband faces legal troubles or employment changes, he cannot evade his duty to provide financial support to his wife and child, especially when there is no proof of his claimed income reduction.

For the general public, this case is significant as it highlights the judiciary’s firm stance on protecting the financial dignity of women and children in matrimonial disputes. It also clarifies that the condition of prior maintenance granted under bail does not affect a party’s right to seek proper maintenance through the Family Court.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance was excessive or arbitrary:
  • No, it was based on available facts and is legally sustainable.
• Whether the husband’s current income was properly assessed:
  • Yes, due to lack of proof for claimed reduction, the Family Court’s assumption stood valid.
• Whether the wife forfeited her right to maintenance by leaving the matrimonial home:
  • No, especially when cruelty was alleged.
• Whether existing bail condition-based payment affected her rights under Section 125 Cr.P.C.:
  • No, Family Court correctly adjusted the interim maintenance accordingly.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875

Case Title
Vishvajit Kumar v. Shweta Kumari

Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 1071 of 2017

Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 725

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Ms. Deepika Sharma
• For the Respondent: Mr. Anshul, Mr. Sachidanand Swaroop, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMTA3MSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-D0–am1–XNPwJWSw=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.