AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. SHUKRE, J.
1.Admit.
Heard finally by consent. Both these revision applications challenge the common judgment and order dated 15 th & 17th February, 2014 rendered in
Petition No.A.906/2007 seeking dissolution of marriage, which was rejected, and Petition No.E.65/2008 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (""Cr.P.C."" for short), which was allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife Venu and of Rs.1,000/- to
the child Atish.
Criminal Revision No.6/2016 has been filed by Venu and Atish, whereas the other Criminal Revision No.7/2016 has been filed by the husband -
Pravin. Both these revisions, however, challenge only the order of granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., though they seek different
reliefs, one relating to enhancement of maintenance and the other to setting aside of the order.
According to the learned Counsel for the husband, the agricultural land belongs to the entire paternal family of the husband and that the husband has
six brothers having shares in the agricultural land and, therefore, the husband is not in a position to even pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/-
to the wife - Venu and child - Atish respectively. He also submits that the wife has received huge amount by selling the property belonging to her
father. He further submits that the wife is the only daughter of her father and, therefore, whatever, her father has got, would ultimately be received by
the wife. This is all disagreed to the learned Counsel for the wife, who submits that there is a clearcut finding recorded by the trial Court that wife is
not earning anything independently and that she is unable to maintain herself and her son on her own. But, the learned Counsel for the wife submits
that a mistake has been committed by the trial Court in determining the quantum of maintenance. According to him, the quantum of maintenance
should have been the same as claimed by the wife and her son, which was of Rs.5,000/- each. The reason is that, admittedly the husband and his
family own agricultural land admeasuring 50 to 52 acres.
5.On going through the impugned judgment and order and the material available on record, I find that there is no substance in the objection taken on
behalf of the husband and I also find that the argument canvassed on behalf of the wife and the son deserves acceptance.
So far as the finding regarding the wife not being able to maintain herself and her son is concerned, I do not think that this could be considered as
perverse or based upon no evidence. The learned Counsel for the husband also could not show to me any evidence having been brought on record by
the husband to prove his contention that the wife was earning independently in the present case. The only contention of the husband is that the wife
has received substantial amount as sale proceeds of her ancestral property. One does not know as to whether or not the wife has really received the
amount of sale proceeds. If the sale-deed bears signature of the wife, that does not mean that the sale consideration is actually passed on to her and
for that matter, specific evidence is necessary, which is absent in the present case.
Even if it is assumed just for the sake of argument that a woman has received some money from out of the sale of her ancestral property, still that
amount cannot be made a capital of by the husband to avoid his responsibility to maintain his wife. A husband cannot refuse to maintain his wife and
child on the ground that as his wife has received some amount from her father, she should eke out her living from out of that amount. A husband can
neither expect his wife to receive some cash benefit from her father or from out of her ancestral property nor can insist on his wife, if she has
received any such benefit, to spend it on her own or child's maintenance, it being her Stridhan, an absolute property. Husband's duty to maintain his
wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is absolute and has to be considered and found in the context of wife's earning income of such nature regularly
as is sufficient to keep herself in body and soul intact and not in the context of what comes to her as entitlement, in the nature of an undiluted right,
from her maternal side. Such benefit coming her way from her maternal side cannot be considered as income earned by her, for the purposes of
provisions of law relating to maintenance of wife and children, unless it is shown by cogent evidence that the wife is utilizing that income to meet her
daily needs, which is not the case here.
There is another scenario also which has to be borne in mind while determining rights and duties of parties in such matters. A wife who receives
such benefit can dispose it of as per her choice or she can even choose to not accept such cash benefit or decide to relinquish her right in respect of
the same in favour of her father or brothers. Her husband, in such matters, would have no say at all. He cannot call upon his wife to not to relinquish
her share in favour of her father or brothers. This would be another reason why the law would say..... Mr. Husband, please do not always bank upon
the benefits that your wife may receive from her maternal side, unless you can show that the benefit is standing in good stead for her to enable her to
survive and survive by maintaining same standard of life as yours. No evidence in this regard has been brought on record by the husband.
In this case, as I see, added to what I said earlier, the evidence on record shows that ultimately the wife does not have any independent source of
earning and if this is so, the finding recorded by the Family Court, that the wife is unable to maintain herself and her son on her own, cannot be faulted
with.
The next question would be as to how much amount of maintenance that a wife and her son, who is aged about 10 years in the present case,
would be required for their survival in the present times. There is also a question of standard of living that a wife and her son, as in the present case,
would expect to maintain and this question would have to be answered by taking into consideration the status of the husband and his standard of living.
In the present case, the husband is an agriculturist and he is not a small agriculturist. Admittedly, he and his family own about 50 to 52 acres of
agricultural land. According to the learned Counsel for wife, the evidence shows that the land in it's entirety is irrigated. This size of the farm land
owned by the husband and it's nature would be sufficient to infer that the standard of living of the husband is not that of an ordinary farmer and it must
be somewhere in the range of middle to higher middle class farmer. About the cost of living, I must say, in present times, a person would require
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- at least for his own survival. Considering all these factors, I am of the view that the wife and her son ought to have been
granted maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- each by the Family Court. But, the Family Court without taking into consideration these material aspects of
the case, fixed the maintenance amount for the wife and the son at Rs.2,000/-and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively, which I find to be not consistent
with the case of the wife which she has made out here. In the result, Criminal Revision No.6/2016 deserves to be allowed and Criminal Revision
No.7/2016 deserves to be rejected.
Criminal Revision No.7/2016 stands rejected and Criminal Revision No.6/2016 is allowed. The impugned order is modified and now it is directed
that husband - Pravin @ Shankar s/o Shamrao Matikhaye would pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- each to his wife-Venu and son-Atish starting
from the date of the order.
The criminal revisions are disposed of in the above terms.