Recently, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the husband, challenging the maintenance awarded to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and held that no appeal against an order passed as an interlocutory order can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act and in view of that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Mukund Murari Mahto, sought review of the maintenance order passed in favor of his wife, Karishma Singh, by the Family Court. The wife had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, claiming that she was neglected and not provided adequate financial support despite the husband’s stable income. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, directed the husband to pay a fixed monthly maintenance. The petitioner contended that he faced financial difficulties and that the awarded maintenance was excessive. He argued that his wife was capable of sustaining herself and that his financial obligations towards other dependents were not considered. He sought a reduction in the maintenance amount through the present review petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the maintenance amount was unreasonable given his financial condition. He submitted that he had other family obligations and that the trial court had overlooked his liabilities. Additionally, he argued that the wife possessed educational qualifications and was capable of earning on her own, which should have been a factor in determining the maintenance amount.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the review petition, arguing that the Family Court had appropriately assessed the financial status of the husband before determining the maintenance amount. She submitted that the husband's claims of financial hardship were unsubstantiated and that she had no independent income or means of sustenance. She further emphasized that the duty to provide maintenance was not negated by the wife’s educational qualifications alone.
Observations of the Court:
The Court emphasized that maintenance serves the primary purpose of ensuring financial stability for a dependent spouse and preventing destitution. It reiterated that the right to maintenance is not merely a statutory obligation but a fundamental principle of social justice. The financial capability of the husband, his standard of living, and his obligations were considered relevant factors, but these could not be used as an excuse to deny rightful financial support to the wife.
It was noted that the petitioner failed to provide convincing evidence to substantiate his claims of financial hardship. The Court held that mere assertions regarding other financial obligations were insufficient to diminish the wife's entitlement to maintenance. Additionally, it rejected the argument that an educated wife is automatically disqualified from receiving maintenance, clarifying that financial independence must be assessed based on actual employment and income, rather than just educational qualifications.
Further the court stated that once the party chosen his remedy under the particular statute, he is required to take remedy under that statute and at early stage the remedy cannot be altered, while placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, which held that the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds in the field. Further it was observed that an order to be a judgment or an order finally deciding any issue it is necessary that such an order while not final and conclusive deciding or determining the rights of the parties with regard to all or any matter in controversy may still have the ring of finality in the case it affects the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties involved in the proceedings.
The court concluded that it was crystal clear that the said order was interlocutory in nature as the maintenance case is still alive and if the order is interlocutory in nature a party cannot be left remediless as in view of the fact that under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 appeal will lie, however at the same time the appeal is barred if the order is interlocutory in nature and in light of that Article 227 of the Constitution of India are available to any person aggrieved by the order.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the review petition, affirming the Family Court's order. It directed the petitioner to continue making the maintenance payments as per the original order, ensuring compliance with legal obligations.
Case Title: Mukund Murari Mahto vs Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: C.M.P. No. 457 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
