Supreme Court shocked at Jharkhand HC order reducing maintenance for wife as Rs. 1,000 per month
THE JS NETWORK Advertisement Ranchi, Sept 22: The Supreme Court in a recent order expressed shock at the judgment of the…
THE JS NETWORK
Ranchi, Sept 22: The Supreme Court in a recent order expressed shock at the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000, awarded by the trial court, was reduced to Rs. 1,000 per month.
The apex court in the case opined that it finds no justification for reducing the amount to such an extremely low limit.
A Division bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah has stated that it is shocking that the maintenance amount has been so drastically reduced to a petty amount of Rs. 1,000 per month for a lady to maintain herself.
The court in the case observed and has set aside the impugned order, wherein the court restored the order of the Trial Court awarding Rs. 5,000/ per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the present case, the husband had filed a criminal revision against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih, wherein ex-parte maintenance of Rs.5000 per month to the wife.
The husband argued before the court that the order was passed without due service of notice and without hearing him.
He in the case averred that he is a poor priest in a village temple and earns his livelihood by part-time tuition. Thus, he was not in a position to make a payment of Rs.5000 per month.
On the other hand, the wife contended that it is not true that the order was passed in ignorance of her husband. Further, both the parties had appeared before the Mediation Centre and she in the case was subjected to cruelty and had to leave her matrimonial home.
The High Court in the case also placed reliance in the case Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the court held that the court must consider the parties’ status and the spouse’s capacity to pay for her or his support.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
