+

Supreme Court Expressed Shock At High Court Order Reducing Maintenance For Wife As Merely Rs. 1,000 Per Month

The Supreme Court in the case observed and has expressed shock at the impugned judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000, awarded by the Trial Court, was being reduced to Rs. 1,000, per month. The court in the case opined that this court finds no justification for reducing the […]

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in the case observed and has expressed shock at the impugned judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000, awarded by the Trial Court, was being reduced to Rs. 1,000, per month.
The court in the case opined that this court finds no justification for reducing the amount to such an extremely low limit.
The bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case observed and has stated that it is shocking that the maintenance amount has been so drastically reduced to a petty amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) per month for a lady to maintain herself.
The court in the case observed and has set aside the impugned order, wherein the court restored the order of the Trial Court awarding Rs. 5,000/ per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the present case, the husband, i.e., the respondent had filed a criminal revision against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Girigih, wherein ex-parte maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife, the petitioner.
It has been argued by the respondent before the court that the order was passed without due service of notice and without hearing him.
He in the case averred that he is a poor priest in a village temple and earns his livelihood by part-time tuition. Thus, he not being in the position to make a payment of Rs.5000/- per month.
On the other hand, the petitioner in the plea contended that it is not true that the order was passed in ignorance of the respondent. Further, both the parties had appeared before the Mediation Centre and she in the case was subjected to cruelty and had to leave her matrimonial home.
The High Court in the case also placed reliance in the case Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the court held that the court must consider the parties’ status and the spouse’s capacity to pay for her or his support.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

Tags: