Daily Archives: January 21, 2015

Bail granted subject to maintaining wife& paying her pocket money. What a humane judgement Ji !!

All Respect for this judge Saheb !! Bail granted subject to maintaining wife and paying her pocket money !!!

Excerpts :
***********************
“….subject to condition that petitioner will keep the victim with due dignity and honour in addition to that he will pay Rs. 1000/- to the complainant as pocket money and deposited the same in the court below till the complainant will open an account in her name and the complainant will also cooperate and establish good relation with the petitioner and his family. ……”

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46462 of 2013 (3) dt.21-04-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46462 of 2013

****************************************************************************************

Ripu Kumar Shrivastava,
son of Shri Bipin Bihari Shrivastava,
resident of Village- lala Tola Bishanpura,
Police Station- Jogapatti, District- West Champaran. …. …. Petitioner.

Versus

1. State of Bihar.

2. Seema Devi,
wife of Ripu Kumar Shrivastava,
daughter of Shri Tar Babu Shrivastava,
resident of Village- Lala Tola Bishanpura,
Police Station- Jogapatti,
District- West Champaran.

At present resident of
Village- Narayanpur Durganagar,
Police Station- Ram Nagar, District- West Champaran. …. …. Opposite Parties.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

3 21-04-2014

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 987 of 2012 registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep the complainant with due dignity and honour.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant was assaulted and abused by the petitioner and driven her out from her matrimonial house and she was not provided proper food. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender within the period of four weeks in the court below from today shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, District- West Champaran, in connection with Complaint Case No. 987 of 2012, subject to condition that petitioner will keep the victim with due dignity and honour in addition to that he will pay Rs. 1000/- to the complainant as pocket money and deposited the same in the court below till the complainant will open an account in her name and the complainant will also cooperate and establish good relation with the petitioner and his family. The trial court is directed to ensure the complainant as right of residence and right of maintenance under Domestic Violence Act as well as subject to condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.

(Gopal Prasad, J)

m.p.

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Hubby earning 50K appeals 10K maint. Hon HC says 25K would b correct maint & so dismisses appeal

Husband’s salary slip shows 70+ K as earning, but he claims hardship allowance etc and claims that his salary is only 50 K p.m. !! He tries to appeal a 10K interim maint order . HC tells him 10K p.m. is VERY reasonable and so …………… dismissed !!!

The Hon HC states and we quote :
*********************************************
* "…… In Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen reported in (2010) 15 SCC 372 the Apex Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.5000/- only for a wife from the husband who is earning Rs.9000/- !!!….."
* "……In case of V.D.Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot reported in (2012) 3 SCC 183, ….Thus …. more than Rs.10,000/- per month from a person whose income may not be as handsome as present respondent………"
* "……in case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha reported in (2011) 1 SCC 141, the Honourable Apex Court has confirmed that maintaining the wife, children and parents is a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution………"
* So … "………it would be appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of the applicant – wife !!!

* "……….Therefore, it cannot be said in any manner that Rs.10000/- is on higher side when application is earning more than Rs.50000/-. I do not see any merit in the present revision application and same deserves dismissal……."

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

R/CR.RA/694/2013 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 694 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

****************************************************************

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
****************************************************************
ASHWINKUMAR BABULAL TRIVEDI….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
MR Y J PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR A A ZABUAWALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SATYAJIT SEN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
****************************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 12/03/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/694/2013 25/06/2014

Heard learned advocate Mr.Y.J.Patel for the applicant, Mr.Satyajit Sen, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for respondent No.1 – State.

2. The applicant – husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.10.2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadali in Criminal Misc.Application No.118 of 2012. By such impugned order, the trial Court has directed the applicant herein to pay Rs.10000/- towards maintenance per month to the respondent No.2 from 6.8.2012 with Rs.5000/- as cost of such application.

3. The applicant is husband, whereas respondent No.2 is wife. There is no dispute so far as their relationship is concerned because they have one son, who is now aged 12 years and residing with the applicant – husband.

4. The record shows that the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, but as per the communication dated 6.3.2014 by the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, the dispute is not settled between the parties and hence now this revision application is to be decided on its merits.

5. By an order dated 22.1.2014, this Court has while referring the matter to the Mediation Centre, recorded a statement of learned advocate Mr.Patel for the applicant that the applicant will pay all the maintenance amount on or before 28.2.2014. Though the matter has not been settled before the Mediation Centre, applicant has failed to disclose on record that whether they have complied with the order dated 22.1.2014 or not. On inquiry, learned advocate Mr.Patel for the applicant wants some time to verify that whether such order was complied with or not. Therefore, when this Court is not inclined to grant further time on any such ground, though the matter is required to be dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 22.1.2014 itself, the matter is dealt with on its merits. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Patel that though salary slip of the applicant, produced by the respondent No.2 with their affidavit -in- reply at page No.87 shows the gross earnings as Rs.72058.42, it includes allowance for overtime. As per the applicant, such amount is Rs.20935.42. However, the salary slip does not disclose that such amount is towards overtime, but is paid as hardship allowance. Therefore, prima facie unless applicant makes it clear by calling appropriate witness from his employer that he was getting such amount as overtime charges, there is no reason to believe that amount, which is paid towards hardship allowance is paid as overtime charges. In any case, even if we believe that some amount is received by the applicant as overtime charges, it cannot be said that it is not his income. Alternatively, even if such amount is deducted from the gross salary of Rs.72000/-, then also, the total earnings of the applicant is certainly more than Rs.50000/-. Thereby, the award of maintenance of Rs.10000/- would certainly come to only 20% of earnings of the applicant. Therefore, there is no substance in the revision application so as to reduce the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court by impugned judgment. However, if we peruse the impugned judgment, it transpires that trial Court has taken care of each and every aspect, both on factual and legal issues. The trial Court has taken care of all the evidence on record. The trial Court has also considered the previous litigation between the parties.

7. However, it is contended by learned advocate Mr.Patel that in addition to widow mother, wife and minor son, he is responsible to maintain two unmarried sisters and, therefore, amount of maintenance of Rs.10000/- to the wife is on higher side. However, it seems that applicant has failed to adduce proper evidence to prove his responsibilities in addition to his personal family, if any. Even otherwise, person is liable to maintain his wife and maintenance does not mean fiscal amount or peace of bread, but it includes livelihood. It is settled legal position that maintenance certainly includes shelter, clothes, medicine. In short, everything which is required for living life peacefully and with dignity.

8. So far as entitlement and necessity of maintenance are concerned, there is no straight jacket formula or strict rules of calculation that how to decide the quantum of maintenance. On the contrary laws applicable to such cases confirms that otherwise wives are entitled to live in similar status as she was residing with her husband when she was deserted and when husband neglects to maintain her.

9. It cannot be ignored that the Apex Court has categorically confirms that Section 125 is a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution and thereby it becomes natural duty of a man to maintain wife and children when they are unable to maintain themselves. Amount of maintenance can be determined considering the value of rupee and inflammation as well as ability of husband to pay. Thereby if respondent – husband is having good income then certainly good amount of maintenance is to be awarded to applicant – wife but if income of husband is not good enough then amount may not be sufficient enough so as to enable wife to maintain herself and she may need financial support from others like parents or even by earning some amount on her own so as to maintain herself. In that case award of amount of maintenance would be for basic support to maintain deserted person. Whereas, if husband is having handsome income then there is no bar to award a good amount of maintenance so as to enable the deserted wife to stay and live her life in proper condition.

10. In view of above, if we referred the cited cases on the subject, it becomes clear that at least in case of Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen reported in (2010) 15 SCC 372 the Apex Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.5000/- only for a wife from the husband who is earning Rs.9000/-. Whereas, in case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha reported in (2011) 1 SCC 141, the Honourable Apex Court has confirmed that maintaining the wife, children and parents is a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

11. In case of V.D.Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot reported in (2012) 3 SCC 183, while dealing with the maintenance under Domestic Violence Act, the Honourable Apex Court has confirmed that husband must provide a suitable portion of his residence, properly furnished and with all amenities, to wife by way of her right to residence and protection with such observation amount of Rs.10,000/- for alternative accommodation was reduced to Rs.4000/- under the Domestic Violence Act with direction to provide suitable properly furnished residence with all amenities, which is to be paid in addition to Rs.6000/- awarded towards maintenance to the wife against Army Officer, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus total support is more than Rs.10,000/- per month from a person whose income may not be as handsome as present respondent.

12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and earning capacity of the respondent – husband, as referred herein above since there is no mathematical formula for consideration of monthly amount of maintenance, in present days of inflammation which increases day by day and considering the fact that the Honourable Supreme Court has granted suitable accommodation with Rs.10,000/- as maintenance from Army Officer, it would be appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of the applicant – wife.

13. Therefore, it cannot be said in any manner that Rs.10000/- is on higher side when application is earning more than Rs.50000/-. I do not see any merit in the present revision application and same deserves dismissal.

14. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.

(S.G.SHAH, J.)

binoy

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

What 1/3rd, 50% hubby’s salary s just & reasnble Intrm maint.Sal 24K, intrm 12K.Long live marriage !


What 1/3rd, 50% of hubby’s salary has been decreed as just & reasonable Interim maintenance in this case. The court says the Salary is approx 24K / month, so Interim of approx 12K is "… neither be said to be excessive nor on the lower side….."

The Hon court has ordered thus :
**********************************************
"11 …………..The maintenance of `12,500/- (`9,500/- for the wife and `3,000/- for the child) is approximately 50% of the husband’s income from the salary which seems to be just and reasonable as it is only an interim maintenance. The exact income of the husband from the FDs shall be the subject matter of the trial.

12. The interim maintenance awarded can neither be said to be excessive nor on the lower side. Broadly, it appears to be just and reasonable…………."

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Delhi High Court

Lalit Bhola vs Nidhi Bhola & Anr. on 12 February, 2013

Author: G.P. Mittal

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 30st January, 2013
Pronounced on: 12th February, 2013

* Crl.M.C.75/2012

LALIT BHOLA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.C. Bajaj with Mr. P.K. Shukla, Advocates

Versus

NIDHI BHOLA & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Maheshwari, Advocate

* Crl.M.C.2227/2012

NIDHI BHOLA & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Puneet Maheshwari, Advocate

Versus

LALIT BHOLA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.K.C. Bajaj with Mr. P.K. Shukla, Advocates

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

JUDGMENT : G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. These two Petitions arise out of an order dated 09.12.2011 passed in C.R. No.43/2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge("ASJ") whereby an interim maintenance of `12,000/- granted in favour of Nidhi Bhola and `5,000/- granted in favour of Baby Jhalak was reduced to `9,500/- and `3,000/- respectively. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.75/2012 is the husband Lalit Bhola whereas Petitioners in Crl.M.C. 2227/2012 are Nidhi Bhola and Baby Jhalak, that is, wife and the daughter of the of the Petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as husband, wife and the child.

2. In Crl.M.C.75/2012, the husband alleges that the overall maintenance of `12,500/- is excessive and arbitrary whereas the wife and the child in Crl.M.C. 2227/2012 say that the maintenance awarded is on the lower side.

3. Lalit Bhola got married to Nidhi Bhola on 19.04.2007. A child Jhalak was born to Nidhi out of the wedlock on 10.11.2008. The parties could not pull on together and allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry, etc. were levelled against the husband by the wife which is not very material for disposal of these Petitions. Suffice it to say that on 30.09.2010, an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.) was filed by the wife and the child seeking maintenance of `25,000/- per month from the husband on the ground that he was having a monthly income of `47,000/-. In addition to the income earned by the husband, he was also beneficiary of FDRs of `18-20 Lakhs left by his mother, that is, by husband’s deceased mother. The wife claimed that in addition to income from salary, the husband also had rental income from a property in Naveen Shahdara.

4. The husband denied his income to be `47,000/- per month. He stated that he was appointed as an executive with M/s. I. Energizer at a total monthly salary of `21,515/-. On account of the harassment and the complaint made by the wife, the husband’s services were terminated by his employer. He, therefore, had to seek an employment with M/s. Ken Computer Education at a salary of `9,100/- per month. While disposing of the application for grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Metropolitan Magistrate("M.M.") accepted the husband’s income from M/s. I. Energizer to be `47,000/- per month. The learned M.M. held that the husband possessed all the amenities to life at his house, such as motorbike, AC, Fridge, TV, Electronic gadgets, etc. He was earning interest on the FDRs of `18-20 Lakhs left by his mother. The learned M.M. disbelieved the husband’s version that he was getting a salary of just about `10,000/- per month from Ken Computers. The learned M.M. observed that the husband’s income cannot be presumed to be less than `45,000/- to `50,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Trial Court awarded a maintenance of `12,000/- in favour of the wife and `5,000/- per month in favour of the child. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. In the Revision Petition, the learned ASJ in the face of the salary statement which existed on record, assessed the Petitioner’s gross salary to be `21,515/-. The Revisional Court observed that it was difficult to hold that he(the husband) was getting a salary of `32,000/- or perks worth of `15,000/-. The learned ASJ further held that the husband had not produced any document to show that the property of Naveen Shahdara was not in his name. The Revisional Court further observed that the Petitioner also had income from interest on the FDs left by the mother of the husband. Taking all the facts into consideration, the learned ASJ reduced the interim maintenance payable to the wife to `9,500/- and to the child to `3,000/-.

6. While awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or the maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption or Maintenance Act, Courts are not only guided by the income of the husband in determining the amount of monthly maintenance. The Higher Courts have held that several factors including the status of the parties, liabilities, if any, of the husband and number of persons to be maintained by the husband would be some of the factors to be taken into consideration.

In Alok Kumar Jain v. Purnima Jain, 2007(96) DRJ 115, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while examining grant of maintenance, pendente lite, observed as under:

] "10. Law under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is well
] crystallized. From the judicial precedents, factors which can be
] culled out as required to be kept in mind while awarding interim
] maintenance are as under
]
] (i) Status of the parties,
]
] (ii) Reasonable wants of the claimant,
]
] (iii) The income and property of the claimant,
]
] (iv) Number of persons to be maintained by the husband,
]
] (v) Liabilities, if any, of the husband,
]
] (vi) The amount required by the wife to live a similar life style as
] she enjoyed in the matrimonial home keeping in view food, clothing,
] shelter, educational and medical needs of the wife and the children,
] if any, residing with the wife and
]
] (vii) Payment capacity of the husband.
]
] 11. Further, where it is noted that the respective spouses have not
] come out with a truthful version of their income, some guesswork has
] to be resorted to by the Court while forming an opinion as to what
] could possibly be the income of the 2 spouses. This guesswork has to
] be based on the status of the family, the place where they are
] residing and the past expenses on the children, if any."

7. In Dev Dutt Singh v. Smt. Rajni Gandhi, AIR 1984 Del 320, the learned Single Judge of this Court(Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.) observed that there cannot be any mathematical formula for award of the maintenance amount such as 1/3rd or any other proportion of the husband’s income. It was held that the law has to operate in a flexible and elastic manner to do complete justice between the parties. The factors to be taken into consideration were laid down in paras 12 to 15 of the judgment, which are extracted hereunder :

] "12. The substance of these judgments is this. Each case must be
] determined according to its own circumstances. No two cases arc
] alike. These cases do not lay down any proposition of law. On the
] facts of the particular case the Court adjudicated what allowance
] will be reasonable to award "having regard to the petitioner’s own
] income and the income of the respondent". If the present case
] illustrates anything it is this that rigid adherence to "one-third"
] rule may not always be just. Section 24 is not a code of rigid and
] inflexible rules, arbitrarily ordained, and to be blindly obeyed. It
] leaves everything to the Judge’s discretion. It does not enact any
] mathematical formulae of one-third or any other proportion. It gives
] wide power, flexible and elastic, to do justice in a given case.
]
] 13. In most cases the standard of living of one or both of the
] parties will have to suffer because there will be two households to
] support instead of one. When this occurs, the Court clearly has to
] decide what the priorities are to be and where the inevitable loss
] should fall. Generally speaking, wife is the financially dependent
] spouse. She is potentially likely to suffer greater financial loss
] from the dissolution of marriage than the husband. For her support
] the Court has to award a reasonable amount. The cases decided under
] the Act should not be followed slavishly. In the words of Searman
] L.J. :
]
] "It would be unfortunate if the very flexible and wide- ranging
] powers conferred upon the Court should be cut down or forced into
] this or that line of decisions by the Courts." (Chamberlain v.
] Chamberlain, (1974) 1 All ER 33, 38 CA).
]
] 14. What is the right figure of periodical payment is
] essentially a practical decision on the facts. The ultimate
] evaluation is left to the adjudicator. On the statutory hypothesis it
] is an indefensible position to hold that the wife in the present case
] is not entitled to anything because she is already earning Rs.1,270/-
] per month which comes to one-third of the husband’s income.
]
] 15. What is a proper proportion of the husband’s income to be
] given to the wife as maintenance pendente lite is a question to be
] determined in the light of all the circumstances of a particular
] case; the very flexible and wide-ranging powers vested in the Court
] make it possible to do justice."

8. Although, there is no strict formula to award a particular percentage of the husband’s income towards maintenance of the wife, normally the Courts have been taking 1/3rd of the husband’s income towards maintenance of the wife. This may be increased or decreased keeping in view the circumstances of each case, like the number of persons to be maintained by the husband and other liabilities. In Sudhir Diwan v. Smt. Tripta Diwan & Anr., 147 (2008) DLT 756, 1/3rd of the husband’s income was awarded towards the wife’s maintenance. In Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, 1987(2) Crimes 447, a maintenance of `225/- per month was awarded in favour of the wife on the husband’s income of `602/- per month.

9. Turning to the facts of the instant case, the husband’s income is claimed to be from three sources. First, the salary, second rental income from the property in Naveen Shahdara and third, income by way of interest from the FDs left by the mother of the husband. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place on 19.04.2007. The husband was appointed as a senior executive with M/s. I. Energizer on a monthly salary of `21,515/-. In the absence of any document produced by the wife to controvert the averments, the learned ASJ was right in holding the income from salary to be `21,515/- per month only. Although, the monthly income in the year 2010 was claimed by the husband to be `9,100/- per month, it is, however, difficult to believe that a person who was getting a salary of `21,515/- would leave the job to get a salary of `9,100/- per month. In any case, the employment with M/s Ken Computers Education loses any significance in view of the fact that during the pendency of this Petition, an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Petitioner claiming that the husband had joined Genpact India and was getting a very high salary. Although, the husband initially denied his employment with Genpact India but a salary certificate was produced to show that he was getting a gross income of `24,384/-. The wife has not produced any document to belie this salary slip for the month of July, 2012. Thus, the husband’s salary cannot be taken to be above `24,384/- per month. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

10. As far as the rental income is concerned, the husband has placed on record the property tax receipts in respect of the property No.1586/17C, (C-10) Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32. On behalf of the wife, it was urged that the property No.1586/17C, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32 and C-10 Naveen Shahdara are different and that he was getting rent from property NO.C-10, Naveen Shahdara. This is not correct as both the numbers have been mentioned on the house tax receipt. The house tax receipt (Annexure P-8) goes to show that the old number of the property 1586/17C, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32 was C-10, Naveen Shahdara. The property is admittedly owned by Bal Ram Bhola, the husband’s father. For the purpose of assessing the income of the husband, the learned ASJ rightly declined to take into account the rent received by the father on the basis of rent receipts issued in favour of the tenant by the father.

11. Some documents were filed to prove that certain FDs were left by mother of the husband, but it cannot be the exclusive property of the husband. Admittedly, the mother was survived by her husband, one son and four daughters. Thus, the income of the husband at the most could be a few thousand from interest on FDs(pertaining to his share) in addition to the salary of `24,384/- per month. The rental income of the father cannot be taken into consideration for award of maintenance to the wife. Father has got other responsibilities, including four daughters who are given customary gifts even after their marriage. The maintenance of `12,500/- (`9,500/- for the wife and `3,000/- for the child) is approximately 50% of the husband’s income from the salary which seems to be just and reasonable as it is only an interim maintenance. The exact income of the husband from the FDs shall be the subject matter of the trial.

12. The interim maintenance awarded can neither be said to be excessive nor on the lower side. Broadly, it appears to be just and reasonable.

13. Both the Petitions, therefore, have to fail; the same are accordingly dismissed.

14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 12, 2013

pst

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Even aftr wife’s 498a, DV & illtreatment, Hon.HC can deny U divorce! Go forth & live wid her. 11yr mariage back 2 sqr 1

How NOT to fight divorce … also called Why be extra careful before getting into this contract called marriage !!!

Excerpts
************************

* marriage on 26.May.2003
* Divorce denied on 02 April 2014 after going thru a lot of dazzle !

Husband contends :
***********************************
* Wife has filed false complaint against husband and thereafter she did not prosecute the matter.
* Wife is insulting the petitioner abusing him in filthy language.
* She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public.
* Even after return (from her father’s house) she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family.
* She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby.
* About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk
* Husband being a teacher and his father also being a retired teacher they are not used to this treatment and therefore he submits a case of cruelty is made out.

Hon. Court Orders :
***********************************
* We do not see any substance in the said contention !!
* As rightly pointed out by trial court because of dispute between petitioner’s sister and respondent’s brother which now has resulted in a decree of divorce, now an attempt is made to obtain decree against respondent.
* The fact that respondent was visiting her father cannot be a ground for divorce !!.
* There is no evidence on record to show that she was not cooking and throwing utensils on his face or abusing him in filthy language.
* The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held case of cruelty pleaded by petitioner is not made out. We do not find any illegality in the said order.

So … husband asked to go back and live with wife !!!

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA

M.F.A.NO.1145 OF 2013 (MC)

BETWEEN:

SRI K.G.DHARANESH
S/O SRI.K.GURULINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TEACHER
THE GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KADASURU,
HUMCHA HOBLI
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
R/O GUDDEHALLI
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.J.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.SMT.M.T.PUSHPA
@ KARIBASAMMA
W/O SRI.K.C.DHARANESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O M.THIMMAPPA
C/O M.THIMMAPPA
MADENAHALLI
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ..RESPONDENT

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:08.10.2012 PASSED IN M.C NO.4/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 13(1)(i-a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This is a husband’s petition challenging the order passed by Senior Civil Judge, Harihar dismissing his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. Petitioner-husband Sri.K.G.Dharanesh married respondent Smt.M.T.Pushpa on 26.05.2003 according to Hindu rights of Lingayath Community. On the very same day sister of petitioner was married to the brother of respondent. Both the marriages took place at the residence of petitioner at Guddehalli, Honnali Taluk. A female child was born named as Kum.Rashmi who is aged about 4 years and admitted to school. Petitioner is in service and working as a teacher in Higher Primary School at Kadasuru in Hosanagar Taluk. Petitioner was residing in Humcha in a rented premises for a period of three years with the child. The relationship was not cordial even from the beginning days of marriage and respondent was quarrelling on petty matters and used to abuse petitioner with filthy language in public. Respondent used to come to her parents house often and insisting the petitioner to come out of the family and desert his parents and other members of the family. When respondent went to her parents house for delivery her behaviour with petitioner became abnormal without any reason. She used to abuse petitioner and his father in public. Even after return she continued to ill treat the petitioner and members of his family. She never cared either for the petitioner or newly born baby. About three years back petitioner was forced to come out of the family by deserting his parents and started residing in Humcha, Hosanagar Taluk. Relationship of the petitioner’s sister and brother of respondent was strained. Respondent was also quarrelling with the petitioner on that count. She was adamant and careless in her attitude. Respondent was not cooking food for petitioner for days and months and throwing vessels and other things abruptly in front of the relatives and friends of petitioner and used to abuse petitioner with vulgar and filthy language. Therefore he got issued legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to stop aforesaid illegal activities and co-operate for dissolution of the marriage and also to hand over custody of the child to the petitioner for her well being. Said notice was duly replied. Therefore he filed a petition for divorce. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. Respondent contested the matter by filing detailed statement of objections. She has denied all the claims made in the petition. She contended that she never treated the petitioner with cruelty either mentally or otherwise and it is just imagination being made at the instigation of his parents and sister. Respondent being loved wife to the petitioner and petitioner was working at Humcha. Respondent not only tolerated his inhuman and overt acts but also suffered at the hands of his parents and she never looked after by petitioner and his parents properly. Petitioner denied her minimum necessities in life still respondent tolerated his inhuman acts. When he persisted in his illegal acts respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking grant of reliefs including monetary relief under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and maintenance of `1,500/- was granted. She preferred an appeal as the said amount was inadequate. In appeal amount was enhanced to `3,500/- per month. However after enquiry maintenance was fixed at `5,000/- for her and her daughter who was then aged about 8 years. She contends that this petition is counter blast case for the dispute between her brother and petitioner’s sister. When she was troubled for dowry she was forced to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police against petitioner. It is thereafter this petition is filed. Therefore she sought for dismissal of the petition.

On the aforesaid pleadings trial court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether petitioner proves that respondent has treated him with cruelty?

2. Whether the petitioner entitled for decree of divorce?"

4. Petitioner to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW-1, examined his father as PW-2 and also examined one witness PW-3 and produced documents which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-3. Respondent examined herself as RW-1. Trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record held that evidence did not establish cruelty by the respondent. Therefore petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order present appeal is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner assailing the impugned order contends trial court was in error in dismissing the petition on the ground that this petition is filed as a counter blast for the dispute between brother of respondent and petitioner’s sister. Respondent has filed false complaint against the petitioner and thereafter she did not prosecute the matter. Respondent is insulting the petitioner abusing him in filthy language. He being a teacher and his father also being a retired teacher they are not used to this treatment and therefore he submits a case of cruelty is made out. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. We do not see any substance in the said contention. Evidence on record discloses petitioner married respondent and on the same day respondent’s brother married petitioner’s sister. It was an arranged marriage. After marriage respondent has given birth to a female child. After delivery she came back to petitioner. They lived together and thereafter it is in evidence that on his own he himself voluntarily took respondent to Humcha and made rented house. They lived together. It is thereafter she was sent out of the house and then petition is filed making allegations. As rightly pointed out by trial court because of dispute between petitioner’s sister and respondent’s brother which now has resulted in a decree of divorce, now an attempt is made to obtain decree against respondent. The fact that respondent was visiting her father cannot be a ground for divorce. There is no evidence on record to show that she was not cooking and throwing utensils on his face or abusing him in filthy language. On the contrary evidence on record shows after marriage they lived happily, a child was born and thereafter made separate house and they lived there for two years together and present litigation appears is a spill over of litigation between petitioner’s sister and respondent’s brother. It was contended that respondent has doubted fidelity of petitioner. If there is any truth in what she says it is for the petitioner to correct himself. When she was sent out she was constrained to file a petition under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Now after contest maintenance is fixed at `5,000/- and now daughter is attending school. Petitioner pleads ignorance about his daughter attending to school or whether she is in which school which shows the interest he has in his daughter. When there is demand for dowry promptly respondent has lodged a complaint. Merely because she did not pursue the complaint that act does not amount to cruelty so as to seek a decree for divorce. It is clear from the evidence on record the petitioner is trying to make out a case as a counter blast for litigation between petitioner’s sister and respondent’s brother. Respondent’s brother is successful in getting divorce. The trial court on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly held case of cruelty pleaded by petitioner is not made out. We do not find any illegality in the said order. No merits. Appeal dismissed.

Application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE SBN

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist