Ahsanullah @ Javeed Khan S/O Chand ... vs Shahana Parvin @ Brijis W/O ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5357 Bom

                                        26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt
                                                 1/29


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


   CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2022



  Ahsanullah @ Javed Khan                  ... APPLICANT
  s/o Chand Khan
  aged about 47 years,
  Occ. Service
  R/o. Akola, Tq. & District
  Akola (M.S.)

                               // VERSUS //


  Shahana Parvin @ Brijis w/o          ...NON-APPLICANT
  Ahsanullah @ Javed Khan
  Aged about 40 years,
  Occupation household R/o
  c/o Majaz Ahmad Khan
  s/o Ahmad Khan
  R/o Lal Bungalow Fatech Chowk,
  Baidpura, Akola, Taluka
  District Akola

  _________________________________________________________
  Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate for the applicant.
  Shri Mohtesim Badar, Advocate for the non-applicant.
  ____________________________________________________



  CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
  Date of reserving Judgment on:- 17/04/2023
  Date of pronouncing judgment on:-09/06/2023




::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2023             ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 18:07:38 :::
                                                 26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt
                                                         2/29


   JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned Advocates for the parties at the stage of

admission.

2. In this criminal revision application, challenge is to

the judgment and order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby the learned Sessions

Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and allowed

the Criminal Appeal filed by the non-applicant and enhanced

the amount of maintenance quantified by the Magistrate and

awarded the same at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month to the

non-applicant/wife and Rs.2,500/- to the minor son from the

date of the application i.e. 01.03.2014.

3. The facts are as follows:-

In this judgment, the parties would be referred by

their nomenclature in Miscellaneous Criminal Application

filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the D.V.Act"). The

non-applicant is the original applicant. The applicant is the

original non-applicant No.1. He would be referred to as a non-

applicant. It is the case of the applicant that she got married

with the non-applicant on 07.01.2001. She begotten three

children in the wedlock. In the main application there were

13 non-applicants. The rest of the non-applicants are relatives

of the non-applicant-husband. The applicant and non-

applicant are from Akola. After marriage, the applicant

cohabited with the non- applicant at Akola. After sometime

the non-applicant got a job in J.G.C. Gulf International

Company At Alkhubar City of Saudi Arabia. The applicant

went to Saudi Arabia in 2006 and cohabited with the non-

applicant. According to the applicant, during initial period

there was no problem. It is stated that there was dispute

between relatives of the non-applicant and the relatives of the

applicant. They were residing in the same building at Akola.

On the report of the relatives of the applicant, the relatives of

the non-applicant were prosecuted in the Court of law. The

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

cause of the dispute and the sour relations between the

applicant and non-applicant is the dispute between them. It

is stated that the relatives of the non-applicant, namely non-

applicant Nos.2 to 13 in the main application, were the real

cause of turbulence in their marital relations. They insisted the

non-applicant to pursue the relatives through applicant to

compromise the criminal case. The non-applicant insisted the

applicant to play the role of mediator and convince her

relatives to compromise the matter. It was of no use. It is

stated that therefore, the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 3 instigated

the non-applicant to ill treat and torture the applicant so that

the relatives of the applicant and the applicant is forced to

compromise the criminal case. The non-applicant at the

instigation of his relatives' insisted the applicant to lodge a

report against her relatives. The applicant refused to do so and

therefore, she was ill treated and tortured. She narrated the

same to her parents. Cousin brother of the applicant, made a

complaint to Maulavi in Saudi Arabia and sought his

intervention in the matter of cruelty meted out to the

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

applicant. The matter was settled. The applicant joined the

non-applicant in the year 2006 again. It is stated that there

was no improvement in the behaviour and conduct of the

non-applicant. The applicant was mentally and physically

tortured and ill treated. In the meeting for settlement the

non-applicant gave an undertaking of good behaviour with

the applicant. Since the ill treatment and torture continued,

in the year 2010 the applicant came back to India with the

non-applicant. Again her cousin made complaint to the

religious Maulavi in Saudi Arabia against cruelty to the

applicant at the hands of the non-applicant. The non-

applicant, due to intervention by religious Maulavi in Saudi

Arabia, again gave an assurance to treat the applicant properly.

It is stated that there was no improvement in the conduct of

the non-applicant. Ultimately in the year 2012, the applicant

and the non-applicant with the children came back to India.

The applicant stayed at the house of non-applicant. It is

stated that during this period, she was again pressurized to

lodge report against her relatives. She refused to do it and

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

therefore, on 07.08.2012, she was mercilessly beaten. They

tried to kill her by pouring kerosene on her person. However,

she managed to escape herself from the clutches of the non-

applicants and went to the house of her parents with younger

son Abdul Aziz. She lodged the report at Ramdaspeth Police

Station, Akola. A crime bearing No.154/2013 came to be

registered against the non-applicant and his relatives. The

non-applicant with two children went to Saudi Arabia. It is

stated that she was subjected to domestic violence. Non-

applicant did not make any provision for maintenance and

other reliefs. She has no source of income. The non-applicant,

according to her is getting monthly income of 20,000/-

Riyals, which is equal to Rs.3,50,000/- in Indian currency.

The applicant therefore, prayed for maintenance, shared

household, compensation and other reliefs.

4. The non-applicant opposed this application. He

has denied the material allegations made in the application.

According to the non-applicant, the allegations made by the

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

applicant are false and frivolous. He took proper care of the

applicant and his children. They were living happy married

life in Saudi Arabia. It is his case that on account of dispute

between the relatives of the applicant and his relatives, the

applicant used to quarrel with him and his relatives. His

relatives were dragged in a criminal case by the relatives of the

applicant. The applicant was the main cause of their dispute.

After some time he gave understanding to the applicant and

requested her not to spoil their matrimonial life in the dispute

between their family members. The applicant did not pay any

heed to the same. It is contended that on 07.09.2012 the

applicant on her own left his house with all her belongings,

ornaments, cash etc. He tried his level best to bring back the

applicant for cohabitation. The applicant deliberately avoided

to resume cohabitation with him. It is stated that when all his

efforts to convince the applicant failed, he ultimately on

30.08.2013 gave 'Talaq' to the applicant. It was properly

communicated to the applicant by registered post. In short, it

is his case that applicant was not subjected to any domestic

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

violence. He has made provision for her maintenance. On

account of the grudge of her parents and her relatives against

him, the present situation has been invited in their life. It is

stated that the non-applicant is a temporary employee. He has

denied his income as stated in the application. According to

him, his monthly salary is around Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-.

He therefore, denied the claim of applicant on all counts.

5. The parties adduced evidence before the learned

Magistrate. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence

held that the applicant was subjected to domestic violence by

the non-applicant. Learned Magistrate, therefore, partly

allowed the application and awarded maintenance at the rate

of Rs.7,500/- per month to the applicant and Rs.2,500/- per

month to the son. Learned Magistrate also awarded Rs.2,000/-

per month to the applicant as rent. Learned Magistrate

awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the applicant.

6. Both the parties, being aggrieved by this order,

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

challenged the said order by filing appeals. Learned Sessions

Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the non-applicant and

allowed the appeal filed by the applicant and enhanced the

maintenance payable to the applicant from Rs.7,500/- to

Rs.16,000/- per month. The non-applicant being aggrieved

by this order has come before this Court.

7. I have heard Shri R.N. Sen, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri Mohtesim Badar, learned Advocate for

the non-applicant. Perused the record and proceedings.

8. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant submitted

that on all counts the order passed by the learned Magistrate

as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not

in accordance with law. Learned Advocate submitted that

admittedly on 07.09.2012 the applicant on her own left his

house and took shelter of the house of his father. Learned

Advocate pointed out that this application with the allegation

of domestic violence was filed after more than one year from

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

the date he applicant left his house. Learned Advocate

therefore, submitted that on the date of filing of application,

there was no domestic relationship between the parties.

Learned Advocate submitted that in the fact situation the

applicant was not covered by the definition of the aggrieved

person as provided under Section 2 (a) of the Domestic

Violence Act. Learned Advocate submitted that on this count,

the applicant was not entitled to get any relief. It is submitted

that on this count, the order passed by the learned Magistrate

as well as the learned Sessions Judge are not sustainable.

Learned Advocate further submitted that in her cross

examination the applicant has categorically admitted that she

had received the intimation of Talaq given to her by the non-

applicant by registered post. Learned Advocate submitted that

the parties are muslim. Learned Advocate therefore, submitted

that the applicant being a divorced Muslim woman is not

entitled to get maintenance from the non-applicant in view of

Section 4 and Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of

Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986. Learned Advocate submitted

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

that this provision would be equally applicable to the

proceeding initiated under the D.V. Act by divorced Muslim

woman. The third contention of the learned Advocate for the

non-applicant is on the quantum of the maintenance. Learned

Advocate submitted that there is no iota of evidence to show

that the non-applicant is earning Rs.20,000/- Riyals per

month. Learned Advocate submitted that the non-applicant is

not Chemical Engineer, but a Supervisor. He is getting

monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Learned

Advocate therefore, submitted that the enhanced maintenance

quantified by the learned Sessions Judge is not supported by

the record.

9. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that

on the basis of the evidence on record the applicant has

proved that she was subjected to domestic violence. Learned

Advocate submitted that the applicant has proved that she

was in domestic relationship with the non-applicant and as

such an aggrieved person. Learned Advocate submitted that

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

the definitions of "aggrieved person" and "domestic

relationship" does not contemplate that on the date of filing of

an application for the relief under the D.V. Act, the aggrieved

person should be actually residing and living together." In

order to seek support to this submission reliance has been

placed on a decision in the case of Dhananjay Ramkrishna

Gaikwad & Ors. Vs. Sunanda Dhananjay Gaikwad & Ors.

reported in 2016 All MR (Cri.) 2291 (SC). Learned Advocate

submitted that the non-applicant has not proved that he gave

a Talaq to the applicant. Learned Advocate in the alternative

submitted that even if it is held that the non-applicant has

given Talaq to the applicant, the applicant would be entitled

to seek relief under Section 12 of the D.V. Act in respect to the

past domestic violence. The learned Advocate further

submitted that muslim woman even after divorce is entitled to

get maintenance from her husband after iddat period, as long

as she does not re-marry. In order to seek support to this

submission reliance has been placed on the decision in the

case of Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan reported in 2010 CRI.

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

L.J. 521 SC and the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court

at Aurangabad bench in the case of Atmaram Narayan Sanap

vs Sangita Atmaram Sanap, reported in 2020 (1) ABR (CRI)

100. Learned Advocate submitted that the courts below have

recorded concurrent findings of facts on both the counts.

Learned Advocate submitted that therefore, unless and until it

is pointed out that said finding suffers from patent error or

perversity, the same cannot be interfered with. Learned

Advocate submitted that no case has been made out to

warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact.

Learned Advocate further submitted that the maintenance

quantified by the learned Sessions Judge is just, proper and

reasonable. Learned Advocate pointed out that the non-

applicant, despite direction of the Appellate Court did not file

the statement of assets and liabilities. Learned Advocate

submitted that therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have

gone through the record and proceedings. I have perused the

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order in

appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. At the out set, it needs

to be stated that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned

Sessions Judge on minute scrutiny of the evidence on record,

recorded a finding that the applicant was subjected to

domestic violence by the non-applicant. Learned Magistrate as

well as the learned Sessions Judge found that in view of the

settled legal position the applicant would satisfy the

requirements of definition of "aggrieved person" as well as the

definition of "domestic relationship". Learned Sessions Judge

on the basis of the material on record as well as by applying

the law to the said material found the applicant entitled to get

maintenance at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month. It needs to

be stated that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the

order of the court below can be interfered with if the Court is

satisfied that the order is perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable.

It is needless to state that unless and until these factors are

borne out from the record the interference in the concurrent

findings of fact is not permissible in the exercise of revisional

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

jurisdiction. On going through the record and proceeding, I

am satisfied that the decisions rendered by the two courts

below cannot be said to be either perverse, arbitrary or

capricious and as such does not warrant interference in the

exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

11. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that

evidence on record adduced by the non-applicant is not

sufficient to prove the factum of divorce alleged by him. It is

true that the applicant in her cross-examination has admitted

that she had received communication of divorce from the

non-applicant by registered post. In my view, this evidence

would not detain me further on this point because legal

position on this point is well settled. In the context of the

limited dispute involved in this proceeding the legal position

settled by the judicial pronouncement is required to be

considered. In the case of Shababa Bano Vs. Imran Khan

(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if a

Muslim women has been divorced, she would be entitled to

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she

does not re-marry. It is held that provisions of Section 125 of

the Cr.P.C. being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit

thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim woman. In this

case, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the

non-applicant has given divorce (Talaq) to the applicant, she

cannot be denied maintenance in the proceeding initiated

under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Therefore, in my view, on

this count the submissions advanced on behalf of the non-

applicant cannot be accepted.

12. The next important issue is with regard to the

entitlement of wife to seek relief under Section 12 of the D.V.

Act, after divorce, in respect of past domestic violence. In

order to substantiate the contention with regard to the

maintainability of the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V.

Act, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of

Atmaram Narayan Sanap Vs. Sangita Atmaram Sanap (supra) .

In this case, the coordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

this issue in great detail. Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 would be

relevant for this purpose. The same are extracted below:-

"22. Besides, assuming for the sake of arguments that the marriage stood dissolved by the decree of divorce, still, as has been held in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni (AIR Online 2014 SC 224) (supra), she would be entitled to file a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act in respect of the past domestic violence. The following observations from paragraph no. 30 are relevant:

"30. An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief under Section 20, child custody under Section 21, compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

23. In view of such observations, no fault can be found in the decision of the two Courts below in relying upon these observations and holding that the proceeding initiated by the Respondent no.1 was maintainable."

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

13. This decision clearly lays down that an act of

domestic violence once committed, the subsequent decree of

divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from

the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the

aggrieved person is entitled under the D.V. Act, including

monetary relief under Section 20, of the D. V. Act. In my

view, this decision supports the contention of the applicant. In

view of the settled legal position, the contentions of the non-

applicant cannot be accepted.

14. The next important point that needs to be

addressed is as to whether the application filed after one year

of separation between the parties would be maintained. In

this case useful reference can be made to the decision in the

case of Dhananjay Gaikwad Vs. Sunanda Gaikwad (supra).

Paragraph No.8 are extracted below:-

"8. However, needless to state, that this very argument itself is misconceived, because the wording of 'Aggrieved Person', as laid down in Section 2(a) clearly provided that any women, who is or has been in domestic relationship with the

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

respondent. The definition of 'Domestic Relationship' also means relationship between two persons, who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in shared household. The definition of 'Shared Household' also means where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. Therefore, none of the definitions contemplate that on the date of filing such application for the reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the parties should be actually residing or living together. The very words "has lived together at any point of time" necessarily cover even the past co-habitation or past living together. Otherwise, these words would not have appeared in the definition. Giving any other interpretation would be making these words nugatory. So till the time the marital tie subsists and the party, at any point of time, had lived together, the application or proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can survive and are very much maintainable so as to grant the necessary relief."

15. In order to seek support the contention that the

applicant would fall in the definition of "aggrieved person",

reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Bharati

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

Naik v. Shri Ravi Ramnath and Halarnkar and another

reported in 2011 Cr.LJ. 3572 . In this case, Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that "aggrieved person" postulates a woman

"who is", or "has been" in a domestic relationship with the

respondent. It is held that such words are used in the

definition to cover past relationship as well. It would be

profitable to extract the relevant paragraphs:-

"8. In my view, the definition of the "aggrieved person'"and the "Respondent" are the defining definitions in so far as the issue that arises for consideration in the present Petitions is concerned. The definition of "aggrieved person" postulates a woman who is, or "has been" in a domestic relationship with the Respondent and the Respondent means any adult male person who is, or "has been", in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Since a domestic relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of the said Act, Section 2(f) also becomes material. Section 2(f) as can be seen from a reading of the said provision means a domestic relationship between two persons who live or "have", at any point of time, lived together

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

in a shared household, when they are related by consangainity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Therefore, the aforesaid three definitions take in their sweep even a past relationship as the words "has been" or "have lived' have been used in the said definitions. The said words therefore, have been used purposefully as the said Act has been enacted to protect a woman from domestic violence and, therefore, there cannot be any fetter which can come in the way by interpreting the provisions in a manner to mean that unless the domestic relationship continues on the date of the application, the provisions of the said Act cannot be invoked. The words "has been" and the words "have lived" have been used for the purpose of showing the past relationship or experience between the concerned parties. To interpret the said provisions so as to mean that only subsisting domestic relationship are covered would result in turning the provisions of the said Act otiose. As is well settled by the judgments of the Apex court in cases of beneficient legislations, an interpretation which furthers its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Reference could be made to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 14 SCC 546 : (AIR 2010 SC 1253 ; 2010 Lab IC 1104) the matter of Union of India v. De-vendra Kumar Pant and others. Apart from that a literal construction of the provisions would show that even if the woman was in the past in a relationship she would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the said Act. The words "has been" or "have lived" appearing in the definitions are plain and clear and therefore effect would have to be given to them. In the instant case, the Petitioner who is the aggrieved person and the Respondent No.1 had lived together in the shared household when they were related by marriage. The Petitioner through divorced continued to stay in the shared house hold till she was allegedly forcefully evicted by the Respondent No.1, she would therefore be entitled to invoke the provisions of the said Act, as the Petitioner and the respondent No.1 are squarely covered by the provisions of the said Act."

16. In view of this settled legal position, the applicant

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

would be squarely covered by definition of 'aggrieved person'

as well as by the definition of 'domestic relationship'.

Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the non-

applicant that she would not be entitled to get any relief under

the D.V. Act cannot be sustained.

17. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant relied

upon the decision in the case of Sejal Dharmesh Ved Vs. The

State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2014 All MR

(Cri) 636. In this case, the coordinate Bench of this Court was

concerned with the wife who had returned from USA and

lived in India for one year. After one year she had filed

application under the D.V. Act. In the facts situation, it was

held that she could file any application under the D.V. Act

with regard to that relationship after one year. In my view, on

facts this decision is distinguishable. This decision was cited

before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge

in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansuri and

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

another reported in 2015 All MR (Cri) 2912 (SC) found that

application under the D.V. Act would be maintainable. It is to

be noted that the decision relied upon by the learned

Advocate for the non-applicant has to be considered by

keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Smt. Bharati

Naik v. Shri Ravi Ramnath and Halarnkar and another

(supra). In this his case, it is held that the literal construction

of the provisions would show that even the woman who was

in the past, in a relationship, would also be entitled to invoke

the provisions of the D.V. Act. Therefore, I am of the view

that the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the

non-applicant cannot be accepted.

18. The next important issue is with regard to the

quantum of maintenance. Learned Sessions Judge has

enhanced the maintenance in the appeal from Rs.7,500/- to

16,000/- per month. The grievance is made that this

enhancement is not justifiable inasmuch as there is no

concrete evidence about the income of the non-applicant. The

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

non-applicant has admitted in his cross-examination that he is

Chemical Engineer by profession and since 2005 he has been

working as Chemical Engineer in Saudi Arabia. He has also

admitted that he has 14 years experience in the field as

Chemical Engineer. The applicant has stated that the non-

applicant is Chemical Engineer and is working with J.G.C

Gulf International Company At Alkhubar City in the Saudi

Arabia. His monthly package is approximately 20,000 Riyals

along with other benefits, which is equal to Rs.3,50,000/- in

Indian currency. It is the case of the non-applicant that he is

getting monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. It is to

be noted that while quantifying the monthly maintenance

payable to the applicant, his monthly salary of Rs.64,500/- has

been taken into consideration. This monthly salary was

mentioned in the affidavit filed by the father of the non-

applicant on his behalf. It is to be noted that on the

application made by wife during the pendency of the appeal a

direction was sought to the non-applicant to file a detailed

affidavit of assets and liabilities. The learned Sessions Judge

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

in view of the law laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha

& Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 by his order dated

12.08.2021 directed the applicant/wife as well as the non-

applicant/husband to file their respective affidavits of assets

and liabilities. The wife filed the affidavit and the statement

of her assets and liabilities. The non-applicant filed the

affidavit of his father. In this affidavit, it is stated that his

monthly income is Rs.64,500/-. The learned Sessions Judge

keeping this conduct of non-applicant in mind has drawn

adverse inference against him and held that it was nothing but

an attempt to suppress the material evidence. It is further seen

that the learned Sessions Judge despite drawing adverse

inference against the non-applicant took his monthly income

of Rs.64,500/- into consideration for quantifying the monthly

maintenance of the applicant. Learned Judge relied upon the

decision in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey

Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in AIR 2017 SC 2383 and

observed that the wife is entitled for maintenance to the

extent of 25% of the income of her husband. Based on this

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

decision, the learned Sessions Judge quantified the monthly

maintenance payable to the applicant. The legal position in

this decision is well settled. It is observed in this decision that

the grant of maintenance to the extent of 25% of the

husband's net salary would be just and proper. In my view, on

this count also there is no error or perversity on the part of the

learned Sessions Judge while accepting the claim of the

applicant.

19. It is to be noted that the non-applicant is Chemical

Engineer. He is working in Saudi Arabia. He has suppressed

from Court his actual income. The applicant cohabited with

the non-applicant in Saudi Arabia for almost 11 years. In her

evidence, she has stated that they were residing in a posh

locality. She has stated that in Saudi Arabia along with the

non-applicant she led standard lifestyle. It is to be noted that

the wife is entitled to lead the life and maintain the lifestyle

and standard which she has was accustomed to while staying

with the husband. The wife has right to lead the life befitting

the lifestyle and standard of the husband. On any ground the

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

husband cannot be allowed to question the wife on such

count. The learned Sessions Judge awarded the monthly

maintenance at the rate of Rs.16,000/-. The applicant has

been residing with her parents. Her younger son is staying

with her. The maintenance awarded to the son is at the rate of

Rs.2,500/- per month. The applicant is at the mercy of her

parents. Non-applicant did not make any provision for her

maintenance. It is necessary to state that while quantifying

the maintenance the price index and comparative the prise

rise of the essential commodities needs to be borne in mind.

In my view, by applying any criteria to the standard of living,

the applicant is accustomed to, the maintenance quantifying

by the learned Sessions Judge would satisfy the bare minimum

needs of the applicant.

20. Therefore, in my view, there is no substance in the

revision. The submissions advanced by the learned Advocate

for the non-applicant on all counts cannot be accepted.

26 revn. 131.22.jud.odt..odt

21. The Criminal Revision is therefore, devoid of

merits and as such, Criminal Revision is dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.

JUDGE

manisha