In a couple of petitions filed before the Jharkhand High Court regarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 24,000/- granted by the Family Court, Ranchi, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the husband’s petition.
The wife filed the petition for enhancement of the maintenance amount, whereas the husband sought the quashing of the Family Court’s order. The family members of both parties had arranged their marriage, and they were living happily thereafter. The husband had completed his MBBS degree as well as his M.D. in Medicine and was doing his internship at the time of marriage. The wife had completed B.Ed after the marriage.
Thereafter, the husband passed the Bihar Public Service Examination and joined government service. Soon after, he went to Saudi Arabia with his wife and stayed there for six years. The problems arose in 2006 when the husband slapped the wife in a heated argument, because of which the wife left her matrimonial house.
After some time, the wife went back to Patna to meet her daughters, but learned that the children had been brainwashed and were reluctant to live with her. In 2014, the elder daughter got married, but the wife was not invited to the ceremony. The wife took the matter for maintenance to the Mahila Aayog, Ranchi, but the husband did not appear before the investigating officer despite a registered notice. Hence, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC in the Family Court.
The husband submitted that he had filed a divorce case, which was decided in his favor on 05-05-2025, directing him to pay a lump-sum permanent alimony of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the wife.
The Court noted that the wife had led evidence to the effect that the husband had a monthly income of approximately 3-4 lakhs, as he was a famous neurosurgeon who had received the Bharat Jyoti Award, but this was not sufficient for the Court to appreciate that fact.
Noting that a petition under Section 125 CrPC filed in 2015 had been decided in 2023, the Court said that the proceedings before the Family Court had not been conducted in consonance with the objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act and the spirit of Section 125. It was stated that the Supreme Court has observed in numerous cases that proceedings under Section 125 are summary in nature and intended to prevent destitution.
The Court said that in a proceeding of such nature, the husband cannot deprive the wife of the benefit of living with dignity, and that it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a beggar. It was stated that a situation must not be created where the wife is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life as ‘dust unto dust’.
The Court noted that the husband had already deposited the permanent alimony of Rs. 20 lakhs, which had not been withdrawn by the wife. Considering the wife’s trauma, the Court stated that the Family Court had rightly allowed her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 24,000/- and affirmed the order while dismissing the petition by the husband.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. Nikhil Ranjan
For Opposite Party – Mrs. Vani Kumar
For State – Mr. Achinto Sen
