Ramchandra Jha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1002 of 2015, namely, Ramchandra Jha is husband of Smt. Nandika Devi.

Maintenance Case No. 12 of 2013 was instituted on an application filed by Smt. Nandika Devi under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking maintenance from her husband.

By an order dated 25.07.2015, Maintenance Case No. 12 of 2013 was allowed and Ramchandra Jha was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to

his wife as maintenance allowances in addition to Rs. 60,000/- in lump-sum for maintenance from the date of filing of the petition till the date of order.

Criminal Revision No. 1002 of 2015 has been filed by Ramchandra Jha questioning legality of the order of maintenance, primarily on the ground that

his wife has sufficient means of income and she has on her own left his company.

His wife has filed Criminal Revision No. 1505 of 2015 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that the amount of Rs. 5,000/-

granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda is not sufficient to maintain her.

The object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the wife or minor children does not live in destitute. A husband

who has sufficient income but neglects to maintain his wife and minor children is liable to incur an order under section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 12 of 2013, parties have laid oral as well as documentary evidence. The wife of the petitioner

has examined two witnesses, whereas the petitioner who was the opposite party in the said proceeding has examined four witnesses. He has filed

order passed in Title Partition Suit No. 39 of 2012 and examined his elder son to establish that he is victim of excesses by his wife, who has thrown

him out from his own house.

Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Ramchandra Jha submits that even during the mediation proceeding before DLSA,

Godda the wife of the petitioner has refused to live in the company of her husband and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance under section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The marriage between the parties is not disputed. Their marriage was solemnized long back and from the wedlock four daughters and three sons

have been born. The learned counsels appearing for the parties state that now the children have been married. At the time when the application under

section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, age of the wife of the petitioner was about 70 years. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned

counsel submits that Ramchandra Jha is aged about 90 years and he is in a pitiable condition.

Be that as it may, on the basis of the evidences laid before him the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has awarded maintenance of Rs.

5,000/- per month to wife of the petitioner-Ramchandra Jha.

From the evidences laid by the parties it stands admitted that besides agricultural income on which serious dispute is sought to be raised the

petitioner is getting pension of Rs. 24,000/- per month; he has superannuated from service in the year, 1994. It has also come on record that he has

deposited money in fixed deposit. The facts that; some children staying with the father and some with their mother, husband and wife living separately,

and no evidence by the husband that he is maintaining his wife, are sufficient indication to infer that the petitioner’s wife has just excuse not to live

in his company. While adjudicating claim of a spouse under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has to be kept in mind that it is a

summary proceeding and the strict rules of evidence are not insisted upon in such a proceeding.

The above being the factual scenario, keeping in mind the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and limitations of the

revisional jurisdiction [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar†reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288,] I am not inclined to interfere in Criminal

Revision No. 1002 of 2015 and, accordingly, it is dismissed.

On the claim of the wife for enhancement of the maintenance amount which is subject matter in Criminal Revision No. 1505 of 2015, all that I

intend to record is that she has seven children and maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- out of the pension of Rs. 24,000/- of her husband is just and proper and,

accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1505 of 2015 is also dismissed.