The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the woman is entitled to live a life in the similar manner, as she would have lived in the house of her husband that is where the status and strata of her husband come into play, and i.e. where the legal obligation of the husband becomes prominent.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner and the Opp. party married on 10.06.2022, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Opp. Party no. 2 filed the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P.Act. The opp. Party was living separately from the Petitioner. The petitioner admitted before the Family court, that he gets a monthly salary of Rs. 53,455.85/- and the Family court directed the petitioner for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the opp. party no. 2.
The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned family court.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the family court had passed the order without considering the fact that the Opp. Party no.2 is a trained beautician and earns Rs. 25,000/- per month, which is enough to maintain herself.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that there exists no material on record that shows that the Opp party is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the inherent and fundamental idea of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to compensate women for the mental anguish and sorrow they experience when forced to leave their married home, in addition to improving their financial situation. In order for her to support herself, the legislation stipulates that there must be some sort of acceptable arrangement. The sustenance does not mean a mere survival.
It was furthermore observed that when a woman is forced to leave her matrimonial home, she shouldn't be permitted to travel around making arrangements for her own needs or believe that she has fallen from grace. The woman is entitled to a life that is comparable to how she would have lived in her husband's home, where her husband's status and strata would have been relevant and his legal obligations would have been apparent.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no reason to interfere with the order passed by the family court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case title: Sandeep Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 3280 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak , Adv.
Advocate for the State: Ms. Priya Shresth, Spl.PP
Advocate for the Opp Party: Ms. Chandana Kumari , Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
