The Jharkhand High Court heard a criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court order requiring the husband to pay Rs 30,000 and Rs 15,000 per month in maintenance for his wife and son, respectively. Subhash Chand, J., cited various texts representing Indian culture and argued that a married woman had an obligation to care for her ailing mother-in-law. She used this as a justification for rejecting maintenance awarded in her favor subsequent to the wife’s unreasonable departure from the matrimonial home.
A Factual Context On 11-05-2013, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, the couple wed and were granted the blessing of a four-year-old child. The disobedience of the wife towards her ailing mother-in-law and maternal grandmother, as well as her insistence on living apart from her husband, contributed to a tense environment; consequently, she and her son voluntarily vacate the matrimonial residence. In accordance with Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the “CrPC”), the wife lodged a maintenance application, alleging that she was not treated fairly in the matrimonial residence following their marriage. Additionally, it was claimed that the mother-in-law remarked negatively on her father for failing to provide an adequate dowry, considering that her son was a physician, and began demanding Rs 5 lakhs on the aforementioned account. Due to such occurrences, she vacated the in-laws’ residence on June 9, 2018. She was unable to provide for herself and her child due to a lack of income, whereas her spouse and even his mother had multiple sources of monthly income. Therefore, the spouse demanded monthly maintenance payments of Rs 20,000 for herself and Rs 40,000 for her son. Conversely, the husband apprised the court that his 72-year-old mother was afflicted with multiple ailments and that his 93-year-old maternal grandmother was bedridden. Furthermore, the petitioner was integrated into the household as a newlywed housewife subsequent to the marriage, whereupon she expressed a reluctance to participate in family management. In 2014, following her conception in 2013 and delivery, she was placed on complete bed rest to facilitate an early recovery. Nonetheless, she once more began to exhibit her disdain for the two elderly women and exerted pressure on her spouse to relocate them to a separate dwelling or an assisted living facility; otherwise, she would vacate their matrimonial residence and return to her parents’ residence. She was averse to her husband and the two elderly women, and she inflexibly returned to her parents’ residence.
Subsequent to the birth ceremony, she returned with stipulations, including abstaining from all interactions with her spouse and other family members, prohibiting the mother-in-law from handling the infant, and even threatening to fabricate false accusations against the family members. As a result, the husband initiated legal proceedings for judicial separation on July 25, 2018. Subsequently, the wife harassed him with frequent phone calls and filed a maintenance case under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The husband then sent the wife monetary assistance, but she declined. On June 9, 2018, the wife vacated the marital residence. The spouse claimed that his well-educated wife, who had earned an MSc in Zoology and was therefore capable of supporting herself, filed the case in bad faith in order to maintain an extravagant lifestyle at the expense of his financial hardship. The Court’s Evaluation The court reviewed the oral testimony provided by both parties and determined that the wife’s departure from the matrimonial residence was solely due to her refusal to assist her elderly mother-in-law and grandmother-in-law in an effort to distance herself from her husband. This conclusion was corroborated by the residents of the house and the neighbours. In addition, the court noted that the dowry demand and IPC 498A petitions were submitted immediately after the husband filed suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, indicating that her intention was to instruct her husband through a counterblast case.
The Court cited the 2016 SCC 455 case Narendra v. K. Meena, which held that a wife’s persistent attempts to estrange her husband from his family constituted maltreatment. The Court also referenced Chapters 71 to 85 of “Introduction to Family Life Education” authored by Professor Teresa Chacko in order to elucidate the respective responsibilities of the spouse. The Court emphasized Section 125(4) of the CrPC, which establishes “reasonable cause for refusal to reside with husband” as a ground for maintenance denial. Additionally, it made reference to Article 51-A of the Constitution, which imposes the obligation “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.” This alludes to the Indian tradition of “serving the elderly mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law, as the wife may see fit, in order to preserve this culture.” The Court ruled that the wife was obligated to provide service to her husband’s mother and grandmother, and that she should not unreasonably insist on her husband living separately.
Regarding the Value of Women in the Family Court The Court cited several Yajurvedic lines. “O woman, you have no right to be defeated by obstacles. Even the most formidable adversary can be overcome. “Besiege the adversaries and their armies with a thousandfold increase in valor.” “Bright woman, your brilliant intellect dispels ignorance and bestows happiness upon all.”
Additionally, Manu Meaning was referenced: “A family is doomed to perish as soon as its women are miserable; however, it will perpetually flourish in places where the women are content.” (3:57 Manusmriti) “Brahma has not created a gem more superior to a woman (stri), whose speech, sight, touch, and thought elicit delightful sensations, in any realm.” A gem in the form of a woman is the result of an individual’s virtuous actions; one can acquire both progeny and gratification from such a gem. Therefore, within a family, a woman is comparable to the goddess of wealth; she deserves to be regarded with reverence, and her every desire must be fulfilled. Regarding the quantum of maintenance decided by the Court, it took note of the husband’s salary slip and the issue of leaving matrimonial home without reasonable cause, the Court was of the view that the wife was not entitled to any amount of maintenance.
The maintenance awarded to the son was determined by the court to be proportional to the income of the spouse. The Court highlighted that in husband’s proceedings for judicial separation under Section 10 of HMA, the wife had also filed application for maintenance under Section 24 and the husband was directed to pay Rs 25,000 for wife and Rs 5,000 for minor son on a monthly basis. The court increased the maintenance amount for the minor son in this case from Rs 15,000. to Rs 25,000. Ultimately, the Court partly allowed the lower court order to the extent of maintenance to minor son, modifying the same to Rs 25,000 per month and set aside the maintenance for wife….
Read More: Wife leaving Matrimonial House with no fault of Husband amounts to Cruelty: Delhi High Court