Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi dismissed challenges by both spouses to a Family Court order granting the wife monthly maintenance of ₹24,000 and declined the wife’s request for enhancement. The Court observed that proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are summary and meant to guard against vagrancy and destitution, and that a wife is entitled to maintenance that enables dignified living comparable to her matrimonial standard but found no basis to alter the amount fixed.

The matter arose from cross criminal revision petitions challenging an order of the Family Court, Ranchi, which directed the husband to pay ₹24,000 per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The wife sought enhancement of the maintenance amount, contending that the husband, a medical practitioner, had substantial income and that the awarded sum was insufficient considering their status. She alleged neglect, instances of matrimonial discord, and asserted that the husband was earning ₹3–4 lakhs per month from his medical practice and clinic.

Also Read: Welfare Of Child Paramount But Not Sole Consideration In Custody Disputes; Courts Must Also Weigh Conduct, Finances And Children’s Comfort: Supreme Court

The husband, on the other hand, sought quashing of the maintenance order. He contended that he had already been paying interim maintenance and had complied with the Family Court’s order. He further stated that a subsequent divorce decree had granted permanent alimony of ₹20 lakhs, which had been deposited before the Family Court. He asserted limited income and financial responsibilities toward his daughters.

Evidence before the Family Court included income tax returns, medical prescriptions, and documents relating to assets and professional practice. The dispute centered on the quantum of maintenance payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court recorded that “a petition under section 125 Cr.PC was filed in the year 2015 which has been decided in the year 2023 which prima facie suggest that in the case in hand the proceeding before the learned Family Court was conducted without being alive to the objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act and the spirit of the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.”

Referring to the object of maintenance proceedings, the Court observed that “the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C are of summary nature and are intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution.” It further stated that “Section 125 Cr.PC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provisions so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her.”

The Court stated that “She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.” It recorded that “In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity.” Further, it stated that “it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar.”

The Court noted the husband’s admission in cross-examination that he continued in medical profession and observed that the Family Court had considered income tax returns and documentary material relating to assets. It recorded that “Considering all these aspects and the trauma being faced by the wife and considering that she has got no income, the learned court has been pleased to allow a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month in favour of the wife.”

Regarding the subsequent divorce decree and permanent alimony, the Court stated that “It is open to the wife to take/withdraw the said amount deposited, if so advised, before the learned Family Court, Ranchi.”

Also Read: State Election Authorities Must Ensure Alternate Poll Infrastructure; Jharkhand HC Disposes PIL Barring EVM Storage And Counting Centres At Pandra Terminal Market Yard

The Court recorded that “Considering the legal provision of Section 125 Cr.PC and the trauma of the wife and further considering the income of the husband, the learned court has already allowed Rs.24,000/- per month in favour of wife.” The Court directed that “It appears that the learned court has rightly allowed the said amount in favour of the wife, and in view above, that order is maintained.” It further directed that “As such, Criminal Revision No.1036 of 2023 is dismissed. There is no illegality in the order of the learned court and as such, the petition filed by the husband being Cr.Revision No.570 of 2023, is, hereby, also dismissed.”

“Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate; Mrs Vani Kumari, Advocate

Case Title: XXX vs YYY

Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:2667

Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 1036 of 2023 with Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2023

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi