Moral Duty of Husband to Provide Maintenance Shouldn’t Burden Marriage

In a criminal revision filed with the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 18-04-2022 issued by the Family Court in a maintenance case, which directed the petitioner to provide Rs. 40,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, effective from the date of her application (4-10-2021), and to clear all arrear amounts within 2 months, Justice Subhash Chand modified the contested order. The revised ruling decreased the monthly maintenance to Rs. 25,000, which the husband was obligated to pay to his wife.

Context of case

The marriage between the parties was conducted on April 29, 2018, and they initially resided in the husband’s residence. The wife made allegations that shortly after the marriage, her husband’s mother and married sisters expressed dissatisfaction with the dowry items provided, deeming them inadequate for their son’s status. She claimed that the entire premises were subjected to surveillance through CCTV cameras, and her cell phone was confiscated by her husband to monitor her activities.

The wife further contended that her husband was a habitual alcoholic who associated with young women as part of his social circle. She alleged that he engaged in physically abusive marital relations, including biting her face, harshly slapping her, and causing injuries to her private areas in pursuit of sexual intercourse. She also described enduring constant taunts and mistreatment from her husband and his extended family, including relatives, which restricted her freedom within the marital household.

Furthermore, the wife asserted that her personal documents and “streedhan” (dowry and gifts given to the bride) were taken by her mother-in-law. She claimed that her husband and his family demanded additional jewelry during a baby shower ceremony. Tragically, a baby girl was born with a liver infection and passed away at the age of 22 months.
The wife was forced to leave her marital home on June 3, 2021, and was presently residing with her ailing parents. She asserted that she had no means of sustenance, whereas her husband enjoyed substantial financial resources and led a luxurious lifestyle with a monthly income in the lakhs. Consequently, the wife sought maintenance of Rs. 1,25,000 per month from her husband.

In contrast, the husband contended that it was the wife who had subjected him to cruelty, which led him to initiate divorce proceedings. He refuted the wife’s claims of bringing jewelry or any such demands by his family members. Additionally, he argued that the wife had exaggerated his income and pointed to his income tax assessment to substantiate his position.

The Family Court issued a contested judgment on April 18, 2022, mandating the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 40,000 to his wife, inclusive of arrears. This judgment was contested in the present case.

Also Read –Selection Process for ADA and DDA positions in Punjab and Haryana High Court

Analysis by Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court clarified that Section 125 of the CrPC serves the purpose of promoting social justice and upholding the dignity of individuals, as outlined in the preamble of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Court advocated for a maintenance amount determined by the Court to be both reasonable and practical, striking a balance between extremes of excessive generosity and financial hardship that might force the wife into poverty.

The Jharkhand High Court further expounded that the fundamental objective of the right to maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse does not fall into destitution or homelessness due to the breakdown of the marriage. Simultaneously, it should not be viewed as a punitive measure against the other spouse.

The Jharkhand High Court brought attention to the wife’s financial history, where she had been filing income tax returns for the past four years while claiming to have no source of income. This fact raised concerns for the Court, especially considering her education and professional qualifications. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged its responsibility to ensure that her income should be adequate to maintain a standard of living similar to what she was accustomed to in her marital home.

The Jharkhand High Court also examined evidence pertaining to the husband’s income, loan obligations, and his responsibilities towards his ailing mother. It pointed out the Family Court’s oversight in neglecting these factors when determining the maintenance amount, deeming such oversight as irrational and unreasonable.

The Jharkhand High Court underscored that while it is unquestionably the moral obligation of the husband to support his wife, enabling her to sustain a lifestyle comparable to what she experienced in their matrimonial home, this duty should not be interpreted as an excuse to excessively burden the husband to the point where the marriage itself becomes an undue strain on him.

Citing the precedent of Chandrashekar v. Swapnil, (2021) 12 624, the Jharkhand High Court partially granted the current petition and enacted a modification by lowering the monthly maintenance sum to Rs. 25,000. The Court also took note of the fact that the husband had already disbursed Rs. 1,20,000 to cover the backlog of maintenance as decreed by the Family Court, and he was concurrently making monthly payments of Rs. 20,000 to his wife.

Consequently, the Jharkhand High Court decreed that the maintenance payments already made should be adjusted towards forthcoming maintenance installments, and the remaining arrears should be settled within a period of 4 months.

Facebook