Rajasthan High Court: In two revision petitions, filed challenging the order dated 05-11-2022 passed by the Family Court, one by the petitioner-husband seeking quashing of the order and the other filed by the respondent-wife seeking enhancement of maintenance. Farjand Ali, J., modified the impugned order dated 05-11-2022 and enhanced the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and accordingly, disposed of the revision petitions.
Background
In the instant case, the petitioner and the respondent solemnized their marriage, however, allegations of harassment due to dowry demands were made. demands of cash and gold. It was alleged that unable to concede to the Rs.15,00,000 cash and gold demands, she was brutally beaten up and ousted from the matrimonial house. A complaint was filed under Sections 498-A and 406 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sought maintenance which was thereby granted i.e. Rs 2000 under Domestic Violence Act and Rs 2200 under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the petitioner-husband prays to quash and set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court whereas the respondent-wife prays to modify the order impugned and enhance the maintenance awarded by Trial Court.
The petitioner contended that the respondent was fully capable of maintaining herself out of the 20 shops owned by her father which were registered under her name and she is earning Rs. One lac towards its rent, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. Counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the petitioner-husband is having sufficient source of income viz., he running a shop in the name and style of Parihar Auto Agency; out of ten shops which seven shops have been given on rent, from which Rs.25,000/- per month is receiving as rent; he is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his Auto parts shop; from workshop he is earning Rs.25,000/- per month; Rs.2,50,000/- per year from agricultural field and it is considered an imperative duty and a solemn obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the sheer object of granting maintenance was to afford the weaker party with sufficient means to sustain themselves. Evidently, there was a gap of 10 years between the filing of the application for maintenance and the subsequent order for maintenance. Although the respondent had been able to make ends meet for the last 10 years, the Court opined that, maintaining one's self somehow is vastly different from maintaining one's self in a dignified manner. Therefore, the Court awarded maintenance to the estranged wife.
Thus, the Court held that there was a clear failure on the part of the petitioner to prove that the respondent had a clear source of income. Furthermore, keeping in view the rapid inflation of commodities, the Court enhanced the quantum of maintenance to Rupees 8,000 for the sustenance of the respondent. However, to meet the interest of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to make payments from the date on which the impugned order was passed and not from the day on which the application for maintenance was filed.
[Gajendra Parihar v State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1350, decided on 28-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner- Sheransh Ramdev, Advocate
For the Respondents- H.M. Saraswat, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
