Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision filed against the order passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, wherein the husband has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to his wife, Jyotsna Sharma, J. held that Trial Court is not barred from granting maintenance from the date of the order if there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same.
The wife has challenged the impugned order for two reasons:
-
The application for maintenance was filed on 01-09-2020 and came to be decided after a gap of almost two years, hence, the Court was not justified in granting maintenance from the date of the order.
-
The amount of maintenance is quite deficient considering the monthly earnings of her husband, as he is a government servant at the moment posted as Sub Inspector, therefore, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 7000/- cannot be considered appropriate, as he is getting salary of Rs. 47,190/- per month.
The husband submitted that he had spent a hefty amount to sort out the matter which had arisen between his brother and his brother’s wife. The revisionist has illicit relations with his brother. In this background, a criminal case under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the revisionist and his brother. The revisionist was arrested in that case. Later on, his brother’s wife filed a divorce case against his brother in which alimony of Rs.14 lakh was awarded which were paid by the husband (‘respondent’).
Further, he pointed out that there was enough evidence before the Trial Court to demonstrate that it was the husband who became the victim of the circumstances around him and that his wife was not entitled for any maintenance amount. It was further argued that even if it is presumed that she is entitled for the same, the amount of maintenance decided, and the date of payment is perfectly justified as husband has been able to prove that financial burden in aftermath of criminal case and the civil case of divorce fell upon him being earning elder in the family. Additionally, it was also pointed out that he is also taking care of his daughter.
The Court said that the Trial Court has noted down the peculiar facts and circumstances relating to the parties, relating to his family members and bearing the brunt of complex human relationships, the fall outs of criminal case as well as case of divorce was fought between brother of husband and his wife. Thus, the Court viewed that the Trial Court has given cogent reasons for deciding the quantum of maintenance and grant from the date of the order.
Placing reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court said that the Supreme Court has not completely blocked the discretionary power of the Trial Court in granting maintenance from the date of order in case there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same. The Trial Court has, in the background of financial liabilities and family responsibilities falling upon the husband has taken a realistic view of the matter. Thus, the powers have been applied in a judicious manner calling for no interference in the order.
[Ranjeeta v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 169, Order dated 10-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Revisionist: Advocate Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate Pradeep Kumar Tripathi;
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate Keshari Nath Tripathi, Advocate Nidhi Singh.
