Priya Mishra vs Ram Binod Jha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2802 Jhar

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No. 304 of 2019
Priya Mishra                                              ..... Petitioner
                                 Versus
Ram Binod Jha                                      ..... Opposite Party
                                 ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Adv.

Ms. Shivani, Adv.

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate

--------

21/ 11.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 28th January, 2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2015 filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr. P.C.; whereby the learned Family Court has allowed a maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner-wife against her claim of Rs.60,000/- per month.

3. The case of the petitioner as it appears from the plaint is that her marriage with the O.P. was solemnized on 01.05.1985 as per Hindu rites and custom at Hajipur, Bihar. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with one daughter namely Priyanka Jha on 30.03.1987 and one son named Rishav Kumar on 16.04.1993.

The further case of the petitioner is that they lived together as husband and wife for a limited period and thereafter the O.P. started quarrelling with her for no reasons, whatsoever, and started taunting her by saying that he is a meritorious engineer, graduated from a reputed institute, employed in a senior position and he is a wealthy person and she had not brought sufficient dowry during their marriage.

It is further alleged that on 17.01.1993 when she was pregnant, he abused her and her parents in vulgar language and assaulted her mercilessly only because she wanted to continue her studies and pursue M.A. and since then physical torture and merciless beating has become routine matter and he used to assault her on every now and then without any reason.

It is also alleged that a woman was staying in O.P.'s house in his native place, Narikala and on questioning about the same, the O.P. became

more arrogant and abused her in vulgar language and assaulted her causing bleeding injuries. The O.P. does not let her visit their native place at Narikala and has always tried to block all her connections with the people.

It is further alleged that when her father died on 10.03.2013 and while she was away in her native place to attend her father's funeral at Hajipur, the O.P. had changed the lock of their residence at Bokaro and absconded.

It is further stated that the O.P. is a Senior Manager in Bokaro Steel Limited, getting Salary of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. He also earns Rs.50,000/- per month from house rent and he has also income of Rs.10,000/- per month from his ancestral properties.

It is further alleged that she tried her level best for getting maintenance from the O.P. but all her efforts went in vain. She has no source of income and she is on the verge of starvation; whereas the O.P. is earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.60,000/- per month towards her maintenance allowances.

4. On the other hand, the O.P. appeared and filed his show-cause before the family court denying all such allegations and stating inter-alia that the petitioner is his legally married wife and the instant maintenance case has been filed by the petitioner with mala-fide intention only to harass him.

It is also stated in the written statement that he had given Rs.50,000/- through bank account to Priyanka Jha for the treatment of the petitioner and earlier Doctor had advised the petitioner not to take rich diet and fast food but she did not care. It is also stated that he handed over the entire responsibility of household affair to the petitioner by giving her required amount of money to manage her household expenditure freely and comfortably as because he loves her. It is also stated that father of the petitioner died on 10.03.2014 when he had gone to Allahabad on 08.03.2014 to see Kumbh Mela. Thereafter, he attended funeral rituals and Sharadh karma of his father-in-law.

It is also stated that he has taken huge loan of Rs.35,00,000/- for the study of his daughter and Rs.15,00,000/- for study of his son and he has also to pay P.F. loan, Co-operative loan etc. He has to pay LIC premium, Mediclaim premium for maintenance of health of their children and the

petitioner. It is also stated that their son is studying in Manipal University and his fee is Rs.3,50,000/- per annum though he has paid the fee of the educational institution and he has also paid Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month for misc. expenses of their son.

It is further stated in the written statement that earlier he had filed TMS No. 380/2014 u/S. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in which his wife appeared and during mediation, she flatly refused to live with him and thereafter he had withdrawn the said suit. Therefore, the instant maintenance petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned Family Court has framed sole issue as to "whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the O.P. in the present circumstances or not" and after hearing the parties passed the order to the effect that petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the O.P. for an amount of Rs.30,000/- for moderate living as per basic needs and status of the O.P. which shall be payable from the date of the order i.e., from 28.01.2019. Against the said order of maintenance, the revisionist-wife has filed the instant application for enhancing the amount from Rs.30,000/- to 60,000/- which she had prayed for before the learned trial court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents along with the depositions available on LCR it appears that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party on 01.05.1985. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a daughter child on 30th March, 1987 and a son on 16.04.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party had subjected her with serious cruelty. It further appears that when the petitioner's father died on 10.03.2013 and the petitioner had gone to attend the rituals; when she returned to her home on 24.04.2013, she could find that the lock of the door was changed by the opposite party and opposite party was not traceable. Somehow the petitioner managed to enter in the house.

It is also the case of the petitioner that the opposite party also prevented the petitioner from pursuing her higher studies. The petitioner was also not allowed to visit her parents' home. The Opposite party created a situation wherein the petitioner had to leave her matrimonial home.

7. The petitioner has brought on record the fact that at the relevant time the Opposite party was working as Senior Officer (Senior Manager) in Bokaro Steel City having a salary of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lac

Fifty Thousand). She also claimed that the respondent-Husband is having further income of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from his house rent and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) from his ancestral properties.

The petitioner in the backdrop of earning of her husband has claimed maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) per month.

8. The opposite party appeared and pleaded his innocence, denying the allegation of the petitioner. The opposite party has also setup a case that he had taken educational loan for higher studies for their children.

9. The petitioner had examined herself as witness no. 3 whereas her son and daughter has also adduced evidence in her favour; whereas the Opposite party has examined three witnesses of which the opposite party is witness no. 3.

10. The opposite party though has produced his Salary slip showing his gross salary to be Rs.2,06,660/- (Rupees Two Lacs Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) per month but he has claimed that there is a deduction of almost Rs. 1,36,592/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Six Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Two) and thus the net receivable by him is Rs. 64,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand) only. The opposite party failed to produce his Income Tax Return to demonstrate his total source of income including his house rent, the earning from his ancestral property etc. before the trial court.

The Learned Family Court considering the salary of the opposite party and the deduction has allowed Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousands) by way of maintenance in favour of the petitioner.

11. During pendency of this application, respective affidavits have been filed by both the parties in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 which indicates that the petitioner-wife is now aged about 53 years old and she is living separate since 01.08.2013 at Delhi NCR. It further transpires that she is also suffering from several diseases for which she is taking regular medicines/medical treatment.

From the affidavit filed by the Respondent-husband it appears that he had paid maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from August 2015 to September, 2015 and thereafter, vide order dated 11.09.2015, Rs. 15,000/- per month was allowed as interim maintenance by the learned Family Court and pursuant to that the Opposite party paid regular interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-

from October, 2015 till 2019. Thereafter, final maintenance order was passed by the learned Family Court on 28.11.2019 and since then opposite party had paid Rs.30,000/- from February, 2019 to April, 2019.

12. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that after passing of the order passed in Maintenance Case being No.81 of 2015 by the learned Family Court, Bokaro; the Original Suit No. 315 of 2016 filed on behalf of present opposite party for divorce was also allowed in favour of the O.P.- Husband subject to deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- as permanent alimony on 18.04.2019. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 315 of 2016, the O.P.-husband deposited rupees twenty lakhs in the Family Court, Bokaro on 30.04.2019.

Further, against the said judgment and decree passed in divorce case, First Appeal No. 176 of 2019 has been filed by the present petitioner on 13.12.2019, which is still pending. In the said first appeal the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance and this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 passed in F.A. No. 176 of 2019 directed the respondent-husband to deposit rupees five lakhs and ten thousand in the account of the petitioner and further directed the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Bokaro to deposit rupees fifteen lakhs upon encashment of three demand drafts deposited in the court of Family Judge as advance towards the maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- from August, 2021.

For ready reference relevant part of the order dated 09.08.2021 passed in FA No. 176 of 2019 is extracted herein below:

"Interlocutory Application no. 2126 of 2020 has been preferred by the appellant for payment of interim maintenance during pendency of this appeal @ Rs. 30,000/- subject to outcome of revision petition bearing Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2019 pending before this Court, which arises out of Original Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2015 preferred before the learned Family Court, Bokaro under Section 125 of Cr.PC. Appellant- wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18th April, 2019/27th April, 2019 passed in Original Suit No. 315 of 2016 by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, whereunder the marriage between the parties has been dissolved and Rs. 20.00 Lakhs has been ordered to be paid as permanent alimony and for future maintenance to the respondent wife/appellant herein. Respondent-decree-holder has deposited the amount of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs through four Demand Drafts in the name of the appellant before learned Family Court, Bokaro. Appellant has refused to withdraw the amount as she is aggrieved by the decree of divorce. Meanwhile, during pendency of this appeal, she has prayed for interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings.

Counter affidavit to Interlocutory Application has been filed by the respondent. Both the parties have filed their affidavits regarding assets and liabilities in view of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in 2020 SCC OnLine S.C 903 equivalent to (2021) 2 SCC 324. Affidavits in rejoinder have also been filed by both the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the counter affidavit to I.A No. 2126 of 2020 filed on 18th December, 2020 and also states on specific instruction that the amount of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs deposited in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bokaro since April, 2019 can be withdrawn and utilized by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that permission may be allowed to seek revalidation of four Demand Drafts totalling Rs. 20.00 Lakhs deposited before learned Family Court, Bokaro. He further submits that the arrears and current maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- till July, 2021, would come to Rs. 5,10,000/-. He further submits that balance would be deposited in the court below, so that monthly maintenance @ 30,000/- can be released in favour of the appellant, subject to the orders of learned Family Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interim maintenance may be made subject to any enhancement of maintenance by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2019 pending for adjudication.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties on the question of interim maintenance in the light of the background facts and the affidavits filed by the parties regarding their assets and liabilities. Appellant has, on her own through I.A. No. 2126 of 2020, prayed for an interim maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- which she was getting till the disposal of the matrimonial suit. Respondent has also agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as was being paid earlier for the time being towards interim maintenance. Therefore, we are of the opinion that interim maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- as was being paid by the husband/respondent herein to appellant-wife till adjudication of the matrimonial suit, should be paid during pendency of this appeal from the date of application i.e., 25th February, 2020. Learned counsel for the respondent is allowed to seek return of four Demand Drafts of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs each deposited before the learned Family Court, Bokaro.

Upon revalidation of one of the Demand Drafts of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs in the name of the appellant, respondent shall deposit it in her Bank Account towards arrears of maintenance from the date of application till 31st July, 2021 i.e about 17 months. Rest 15.00 Lakhs would be encashed by the respondent and deposited before learned Family Court, Bokaro for payment of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant every month therefrom to be credited in the Bank Account of the appellant as under:

Name : Priya Mishra Bank : ICICI Account No.: 026501520632

Since the amount of arrears for 17 months should come to Rs. 5,10,000/- @ 30,000/-, the respondent would pay further Rs. 10,000/- by depositing it in her Account at the time of deposit of Bank Draft of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs in her favour.

Learned Family Court is therefore directed to return four Demand Drafts comprising Rs. 20.00 Lakhs deposited by the

respondent, Ram Binod Jha towards permanent alimony for the aforesaid purpose if the respondent undertakes to revalidate one Bank Draft for the amount of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs in the name of the appellant and deposit it in her Account No. 026501520632 and also deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 15.00 Lakhs upon encashment of the three Demand Drafts before learned Family Court, Bokaro for payment of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant, Priya Mishra towards current and future monthly maintenance starting from August, 2021.

Respondent shall file an affidavit after carrying out the revalidation of the Bank Draft of Rs. 5 Lakhs and payment thereof with Rs. 10,000/- in the Account of the appellant and also deposit of the remaining 15 Lakhs before learned Family Court in the manner directed hereinabove by 23rd August, 2021.

I.A. no. 2126 of 2020 stands disposed of."

13. It has also come on record that opposite party had retired from service on 15.01.2021 and his retiral dues has been settled and he has received huge amount at the time of retirement.

14. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- wife had submitted that the O.P.-husband has received about rupees two crores as post retiral benefit, as such a lumpsum amount may be paid to this petitioner by calculating at least 1/3rd of the total amount. However, during mediation, the amicable settlement for one-time permanent alimony could not be materialized.

Per contra Mr. Arvind Kumar Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.-Husband contended that after retirement there is no regular source of income of the husband and though he has received huge amount as post retiral benefit but it is also not in dispute that the opposite party-husband has incurred huge amount towards studies/higher studies of their children which has been admitted by the petitioner-wife.

15. Mr. Prashant Pallav, also contended that the O.P.-husband is having several properties and has received huge amount as post retiral benefit.

Upon this contention, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, submits that even otherwise, the property will devolve to the legal heirs.

I am not inclined to deliberate on this issue as Indian Succession Act, 1956 is sufficient to decide and resolve the issue of property, both movable and immovable, between the legal heirs of the deceased.

16. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions; few realities are apparent:

i) The marriage between the parties is admitted.

ii) The O.P.-husband himself has filed salary statements for the

month of May 2018 showing that his gross salary was Rs.2,00,666/- per month at the relevant time but his all deduction is Rs.1,36,592/- per month and net payment is Rs.64,050/- per month which shows that in spite of huge deductions, his net payment was Rs.64,000/- per month and now admittedly, he doesn't have to incur any expenses for education of their children because they are well settled. At the same time, now the petitioner has also superannuated from his service and had received huge amount amounting to Rs. 2 Crore approx.

iii) The O.P.-husband has incurred huge amount towards higher studies of their children by taking loan from his department and friends and now his son is working. He has also taken Mediclaim policy of Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment of his children and his wife.

iv) Now the petitioner, who is having no earning of her own, and is also in advance stage of her life and suffering from various chronic deceases/ailments for which she is taking regular medicines as it appears from the affidavit filed by her.

v) The petitioner-Wife is living alone in a rented house at Delhi NCR as both the children are now settled and residing at their respective places.

17. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 the Hon'ble Apex Court has specified several parameters for fixing the maintenance amount for the wife. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted herein below: -

"85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable.

(a) Age and employment of parties

86. In a marriage of long duration, where parties have endured the relationship for several years, it would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. On termination of the relationship, if the wife is educated and professionally qualified, but had to give up her employment opportunities to look after the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would be required to be given due importance.

This is of particular relevance in contemporary society, given the highly competitive industry standards, the separated wife

would be required to undergo fresh training to acquire marketable skills and retrain herself to secure a job in the paid workforce to rehabilitate herself. With advancement of age, it would be difficult for a dependent wife to get an easy entry into the workforce after a break of several years.

(b) Right to residence

87. Section 17 of the DV Act grants an aggrieved woman the right to live in the "shared household". Section 2(s) defines "shared household" to include the household where the aggrieved woman lived at any stage of the domestic relationship; or the household owned and rented jointly or singly by both, or singly by either of the spouses; or a joint family house, of which the respondent is a member.

88. The right of a woman to reside in a "shared household" defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, by a Bench comprising of Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.] held that "shared household" referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the application was filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree of permanence. A mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute a "shared household". It is important to consider the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of the household, to determine whether the premises is a "shared household". Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of the joint family, or that the household must belong to the joint family, in which he or the aggrieved woman has any right, title or interest. The shared household may not necessarily be owned or tenanted by the husband singly or jointly.

89. Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.

(c) Where wife is earning some income

90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:

90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] , this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is

sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ 3451] 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.

90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.

(d) Maintenance of minor children

91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.

92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.

(e) Serious disability or ill health

93. Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child/children from the marriage/dependent relative who require constant care and recurrent expenditure, would also be a relevant consideration while quantifying maintenance. IV. Date from which Maintenance to be Awarded

94. There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date from which an order of maintenance may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the DV Act, does not provide the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded. Section 125(2) CrPC is the only statutory provision which provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of application. [K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba, 1989 SCC OnLine AP 60 : (1989) 1 AP LJ 604]

95. In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent."

18. In the instant case, undoubtedly; the O.P.- husband has retired from service and the petitioner-wife is also aged about 54 years and suffering from several chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension etc., as such, she must be in requirement of regular medicine.

It has also come from deposition that the wife is not working anywhere and there is no source of income of the wife but she belongs to a very good family and his son is also settled but at present she is residing alone at Delhi NCR, as during course of mediation she appeared before this Court and said that at present she is residing at Delhi in a rented house. Thus, it is true that she will require a handsome amount for a dignified living.

The learned trial court though discussed about the Mediclaim policy, the gross salary of the petitioner at the relevant time and the deduction which has been made, but no finding has been given towards the living standard and the requirement of the petitioner-wife.

19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made herein above following question emerges for consideration before this Court:-

(i) What should be the monthly maintenance amount which the petitioner-Wife should get vis-a-vis the O.P-Husband should pay to his wife?

(ii) From which date the maintenance amount, be awarded to

the wife?

20. So far as the first question is concerned; in the background of the aforesaid judgment and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the basic need of the petitioner-wife, who is admittedly residing alone at Delhi NCR and her status in the society and also the fact that she has prayed for Rs.60,000/- per month as monthly maintenance; this Court is of the view that learned Family Court has committed an error in granting of Rs.30,000/- only per month to the petitioner which is admittedly a lesser amount for the petitioner for living with dignity.

At the cost of repetition, though the learned trial court has discussed about the expenses & salary of the petitioner at the relevant time and the deduction which has been made, but no finding has been given towards the living standard and the requirements and need of the petitioner-wife.

As such, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be sufficed by enhancing the amount of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month to the petitioner.

21. Now coming to the next question; it would be relevant to refer the contention of Mr. Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, learned counsel for the O.P.- husband with respect to interim maintenance. He contended that the order of interim maintenance was allowed on 11.09.2015 @ Rs.15,000/- by the learned Family Court. The petitioner-wife had filed revision petition before this Court being Cr. Revision No. 1541 of 2016 and the same was subsequently converted into Cr. M.P. No. 3146 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2018 in which the Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.04.2016 granting interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner, as such, the interim order passed by the Family Court has attained finality.

In this regard it become necessary to peruse the order itself. From the order dated 10.09.2018, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 3146 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of interim maintenance it appears that the said application was not rejected; rather the ccoordinate bench of this court refused to interfere with the order on the submission of the rival parties that original maintenance case was on the verge of disposal. In that background, the coordinate Bench passed the following order:

"Heard the parties.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2016, passed by the learned Principal District

Judge cum Principal Judge (Family Court), Bokaro in Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2015, by which an interim order of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Petitioner, who is the wife, is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded in her favour.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence has already been concluded.

Considering the fact that the evidence into the application preferred under section 125 Cr.P.C. has already been concluded, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.04.2016 granting interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner and this application accordingly stands disposed of with a direction to the learned Principal District Judge cum Principal Judge(Family Court), Bokaro to dispose of Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2015 at the earliest and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

22. After examining the aforesaid order, it cannot be said that the order of interim maintenance has attained finality. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that the interim order merges with the final order and further the interim order of maintenance was an ad-hoc arrangement; as such it would be incorrect to hold that the petitioner is entitled only for Rs. 15000/- during pendency of the original maintenance case.

In this regard, again reference may be made to the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para- 96 to 100, 113 & 131 as under:-

"96. The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependent children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years.

97. The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu [Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu, (1996) 1 OLR 361] held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order.

98. In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena [Kanhu Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena, 2000 SCC OnLine Ori 217 : 2001 Cri LJ 879] , the Orissa High Court was considering an application under Section 125 CrPC, wherein it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was within the discretion of the court, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed

in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena [Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena, 2010 SCC OnLine Ori 30 : (2010) 93 AIC 726] , wherein it was reiterated that dependants were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.

99. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna v. Dharam Raj [Krishna v. Dharam Raj, 1991 SCC OnLine MP 6: (1993) 2 MPJR 63] held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view that the "normal rule" was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2) CrPC, which the legislature did not intend. Reasons must be recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of order.

100. The law governing payment of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda [Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda, 2019 SCC OnLine All 5428 : (2019) 6 ADJ 850] . The Court held that the date of application should always be regarded as the starting point for payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for maintenance under Section 18 of the HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment. The High Court held that the normal inference should be that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the application, which may arise due to paucity of time of the court, or on account of the conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there was a delay of seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to maintenance from the date of application/suit."

"113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant."

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B -- IV above." Emphasis supplied.

In view of the above ratio, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance of the same amount which will be fixed by this Court.

23. Having regard to the discussions made herein above, the instant application is allowed and this Court holds that the petitioner-wife is entitled for Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the original maintenance case i.e., Original Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2015.

24. Consequently, the O.P.-Husband shall pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month which shall be paid in the 1 st week of every succeeding month.

So far as arrear of amount of maintenance is concerned; the same shall be calculated @ Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of filing till date and the same shall be paid to the petitioner wife in her A/c, the details of which is given herein below:

Name : Priya Mishra Bank : ICICI Account No.: 026501520632 IFSC No. ICIC0000265

25. At this stage, it is clarified that the amount which has been already paid to the petitioner-Wife by way of interim maintenance and/or by the order passed by any Court, shall be deducted from the arrear amount. It has been informed by the opposite party that rupees twenty lakhs have been deposited before the learned Family Court and from there the wife is receiving interim maintenance/final maintenance fixed by the family court.

Here it is made clear that the O.P.-Husband shall withdraw whatever amount remaining from learned family Court but he shall pay the arrear amount to the petitioner wife within a period of four months from today and in no case beyond 31st December'2023.

It is also clarified that the O.P.-Husband shall start paying the monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from now onwards which shall become due in the 1st week of the succeeding month i.e., September'2023.

26. Consequently, the instant application stands disposed of.

27. Let the copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Pramanik/ AFR