Court dismisses petitions by both spouses, affirming Rs. 24,000 monthly maintenance and addressing permanent alimony.
In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the Family Court's decision granting Rs. 24,000 per month in maintenance to Chetna Kumar from her estranged husband, Dr. Prasoon Kumar. The decision came after both parties filed revisions challenging the Family Court's earlier ruling. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, underscoring the importance of maintaining a dignified life for the wife post-separation.
The case traces back to the Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2015, where Chetna Kumar sought an enhancement of maintenance, claiming her husband's monthly income exceeded Rs. 3 lakhs. Dr. Prasoon Kumar, a renowned neuro physician, countered by seeking the quashing of the maintenance order, arguing financial strain and claiming he was no longer practicing medicine.
Justice Dwivedi emphasized that the concept of sustenance transcends mere survival, asserting that a wife is entitled to a life of dignity akin to her matrimonial home. He reiterated the husband's sacrosanct duty to provide financial support, irrespective of his personal grievances or financial maneuvers to avoid maintenance. The court observed that Dr. Prasoon Kumar’s financial obligations towards his daughters, including their education and marriage, were notable but did not absolve him of his duty towards his wife.
The judgment also highlighted the procedural delays in the Family Court, noting that the maintenance petition filed in 2015 was only resolved in 2023. Justice Dwivedi criticized the procedural inefficiencies, urging courts to expedite such cases to prevent vagrancy and destitution among separated spouses.
Additionally, the court acknowledged the permanent alimony of Rs. 20 lakhs awarded in the divorce proceedings, which Dr. Prasoon Kumar had already deposited but remained unclaimed by Chetna Kumar. Justice Dwivedi advised her to access these funds through the Family Court, if she chooses.
Ultimately, the High Court found no legal grounds to modify the Family Court's maintenance order or to quash it, dismissing both the wife's petition for enhancement and the husband's petition for annulment. The decision reinforces the legal principle that maintenance aims to preserve the dignity and standard of living of the spouse, reflecting the socio-economic status established during the marriage.
Bottom Line:
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - Maintenance - Obligation of the husband to provide financial support to the wife to prevent her from vagrancy and destitution; maintenance should enable the wife to live a dignified life similar to that in her matrimonial home.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849592
