1 CRR.73/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] Chandrabati -Vs- [ENTITY] Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. ORDER
(31/08/2017) This criminal revision has been filed under [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] for enhancement of maintenance amount against the order dated 10.9.2010 passed by JMFC, Bhander, District Datia in [CASE NUMBER] by which the Trial Court has directed the respondent to pay Rs.700/- per month to the applicant by way of maintenance.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicant filed an application under [SECTION] of [ACT] on the ground that she was married to the respondent about four years back and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. However, the respondent and his family members started harassing and treating the applicant with cruelty on the ground that less dowry was paid. Inspite of all efforts made by the father of the applicant, the behavior of the respondent and his family members did not improve and subsequently she was turned out of her matrimonial house. Thereafter due to the intervention of the relatives, the respondent took the applicant back to her matrimonial house but his behavior remained the same. During this period the applicant also got pregnant. In the month of March, 2008 the applicant came back to her parents house because of ill treatment and thereafter the respondent refused to take her back because his demand of Rs.50,000/- was not fulfilled. The applicant is unable to maintain herself whereas the respondent has 20 acres of irrigated land and has yearly income of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was also alleged that the applicant is also working in a factory from where he is getting Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, a prayer for grant of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month by way of maintenance was made.
3. The respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations. It was also alleged that the applicant is living an adulterous life. So far as the income part is concerned, it was alleged that the respondent is a labourer and with great difficulties he is able to earn only Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- per month.
4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the application filed under [SECTION] of [ACT] and awarded Rs.700/- per month to the applicant by way of maintenance. So far as the entitlement of the applicant to receive the maintenance amount is concerned, the respondent has not challenged the said findings and in absence of any challenge, the entitlement of the applicant to receive the maintenance amount is not being considered.
5. So far as the quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, the respondent himself has admitted that his father has agricultural land and all the members of the family carry out the agricultural activities jointly and he also helps his father in the agricultural activities.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held as under:-
"14. If the husband is healthy, able- bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under [SECTION] [ACT], unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
* * * *
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been opined thus: (SCC OnLine Del para 7)
7. an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.
19. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes her faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance."
7. Thus, it is clear that where the husband is an able bodied person and is not suffering from any physical disability then he cannot avoid making payment of maintenance to his wife on the ground of his meager income.
8. Considering the price index, inflation and the prices of the articles of daily need, this Court is of the view that the maintenance amount of Rs.700/- per month awarded by the Trial Court is less. Accordingly, the same is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month.
9. In the present case since the Trial Court had awarded the maintenance to the applicant from the date of the order i.e. 10.9.2010, therefore, the enhanced amount shall also be payable from the date of order of the Trial Court i.e. 10.9.2010 because the order sheets of this Court clearly show that by order dated 20.6.2011, this Court had directed the office to list this case for final hearing on 4.7.2011. On 4.7.2011, none appeared for the respondent and accordingly the case was directed to be listed on 5.7.2011. On 5.7.2011, the case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondent and thereafter on 15.7.2011 as none of the parties appeared, therefore, the case was adjourned. Thus, it is clear that in fact it is because of the respondent, the case remained pending for six long years before this Court.
10. Accordingly, this revision succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
([ENTITY]) (alok) Judge