For disposal of this Criminal Revision following point of
determination are being framed:
(i) Whether the opposite party No.1-wife has refused to live
with her husband without any sufficient cause, if so its
effect? {Para 9}
21. In view of the above in the case in hand, the issue between the
husband and wife is that the wife is not agree to serve the old aged mother in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law, who are respectively 75 years and 95 years old. She creates pressure upon her husband to live separate from his mother and maternal grandmother. It is the very reason; this ground is not found sufficient that’s why the legislature while enacted under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided one of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause.
22. In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture’. It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture. It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-inlaw. Accordingly, the point of determination No.1 is decided in favourt of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party No.1-wife.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.172 of 2022
Rudra Narayan Ray Vs Piyali Ray Chatterjee,
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
Pronounced on:22/01/2024.
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order
dated 21.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dumka in Original Maintenance Case No.66 of 2018, whereby the learned
Court below has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the opposite party
Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the
opposite party No.2-wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party
No.3-minor son Punya Prasoon Ray with effect from the date of institution
of the case.
2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the
maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioner-Piyali Ray Chatterjee with
these allegations that she is legally wedded with Rudra Narayan Ray and her
marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2013 at Durgapur according to Hindu
rites and rituals and, thereafter, the said marriage was also registered. Out of
the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a child, who is aged 4 years 3
months, namely, Punya Prasoon Ray. The petitioner was not treated properly
after marriage when the petitioner went to her sasural after marriage. The
mother-in-law made comment that the father of the petitioner had not given
more dowry as her son was the doctor. The respondent and his mother began
to create pressure upon the petitioner for demand of Rs.5 lakhs on account of
the same, the petitioner was mentally shocked. The petitioner-wife became
pregnant and was leading the life in mental agony being much frustrated
with her future. The respondent-husband all the time used to say to go to
father’s house and shall not allow her to reside with him. For this reason, the
petitioner-wife left the in-law’s house on 09.06.2018 and went to her
parental house at Maluti. The respondent along with his mother came to
Maluti on 26.08.2018 and began to quarrel with the father of the petitioner
because the demand was not fulfilled. There had been hulla on account of
the quarrel. The persons of the locality came and saw the occurrence. The
respondent-husband and his mother both fled away from there after having
criminally intimidated her. The respondent had deserted the petitioner
without any proper cause. The petitioner is having no source of income to
maintain herself and her minor children while the respondent-husband has
landed property at Bankura, a flat at Kolkata, from which, he gains
Rs.50,000/- per month as rent. He gets Rs.1,50,000/- as salary and also gains
Rs.2,00,000/- per month from the pathology clinic. His mother gets
Rs.50,000/- per month family pension, as such, total income of the
respondent-husband is Rs.4,50,000/- per month. Accordingly, prayed for
Rs.40,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs.20,000/- per month for
maintenance of her son.
3. On behalf of the respondent-husband, written statement was filed, in
which, it has been stated that the petitioner has filed the maintenance
application after having suppressed material facts. The averments made in
paragraph Nos.2(a), 2(b), 3, 4, 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) in maintenance application
are denied by the petitioner and it has been stated that the respondent is the
only male member in his family. His mother being aged 72 years old with
various serious ailment like blood sugar with hyper tension for last 20 years
and maternal grandmother being aged about 93 years under bed ridden
condition wherein after marriage the respondent was included with them as
the exclusive newly married housewife. The problem was created by the
petitioner from initial stage after the marriage as after entry in her
matrimonial home the respondent in her every casual attitude, posture and
gesture showed reluctance and disguised in disturbing common
responsibility towards the petitioner or the other two old fellows. In the year
2013, the petitioner expressed her declined attitude towards the management
with the family.
3.1 In the year 2013, the petitioner conceived and, in such condition,
wanted to go to her parental home but the mother of the petitioner suggested
for better management. The petitioner having ignored the same, wanted to
go to parental home and, subsequently, the respondent was able to bring the
petitioner back to Bankura on 19.04.2014 and a male baby was brought forth
on 22.05.2014. As some post maternity rest stands necessary so the
respondent was put in full rest in petitioner’s house as having blessed with a
male baby and entire family member of the petitioner appreciated the
incident with optimum satisfaction so no deficiency was allowed towards the
respondent or her baby so that the respondent gets early recovery, the baby
gets smoothly develop and no scarcity was allowed on that aspect as the
petitioner himself a medical practitioner (MBBS, DCP, MD). While the post
maternity management got much maturity the respondent again started
showing her disgusting attitude towards the mother-in-law and grandmotherin-
law and on the score of which the respondent started creating pressure
upon the petitioner to alienate the said two old females from the family and
insisted upon the petitioner on throwing the two old female members in
separate residence or in any old age home and in such interaction the
respondent gradually became obstinate by declaring that if she is not allowed
to enjoy a nuclear family and if the petitioner does not do so then she would
leave her matrimonial home and proceed towards her parental address.
3.2 As a matter of fact, the petitioner in repeated day to day instance tried
to convince the respondent about impossibility on his part to leave his
mother or maternal grandmother as it would be a great sin and derailment
from morality and it can never return happiness but everything turned futile
rather the respondent became most arrogant towards the petitioner and two
dependant over aged ailing woman but in subsequence of which the ever
attitude of the respondent became aggressive and in the event of the same in
every moment the respondent started pinching and taunting the petitioner as
‘Biye Korte Geslis Keno Mayer Achol Dhore Thaklei to Partis’ and behaving
same with the mother-in-law by using intolerable filthy language and with
the grandmother-in-law by saying ‘Bangal Magi Kuri Bochor Dhore
Jamayer Ghore Bose Bose Kachhis Lojjya Korena Tor Moron Nei’ and
practically by hearing such sorts of word the petitioner turned frustrated and
the two aged female members turned depressed with mental trauma and
physical condition of the grandmother reached at worst both physically and
mentally as well as the petitioner has become highly depressed resulting
unmindful in his profession. But the petitioner then adamantly went to her
parental home to give lesson to the respondent.
3.3 On 02.11.2014, the ‘annaprasan’ ceremony of the baby was arranged
and after hundreds of request respondent came on 30.10.2014. The petitioner
was in great tension as the invitation was complete but the baby was not
here. Lastly, the petitioner came back with so many conditions. After the
‘Annaprasan’ ceremony of the baby the petitioner again started creating
problem and categorically again told the respondent to throw mother-in-law
and grandmother out of the house and keep them in rented house, as it was
not done so the petitioner disallowed her mother-in-law to touch her baby
and in such situation while the respondent tried to convince the petitioner
not to do such inhuman behaviours then in reply she told the respondent that
she would fabricate false case of physical and mental torture for putting all
the matrimonial persons in cage if anything be done against her demand.
From July 2015 till she left on 09.06.2018 petitioner never took breakfast,
lunch, dinner with respondent. Petitioner was adamant that till respondent’s
mother and grandmother were thrown out of the house she would not sit at
dining table. She took food in bed room abandoning association of the
respondent and the other inmates. Within gap of every two months,
petitioner used to go her paternal home with the kid.
3.4 Things became much easier for her, as from December 2017 the
petitioner complained of breathing problem and asked the respondent for
consultation with chest specialist. As respondent was afraid already with
attitude of petitioner, so she was advised to consult a doctor at Burdwan
instead of Bankura. Petitioner family used to consult doctors in Burdwan as
it is reflected from the treatment of petitioner’s father for Multi Drug
Resistant Tuberculosis. Petitioner went twice on that ground till March 2018
in a gap of almost two months. The petitioner intentionally used to talk with
her parental inmates over mobile phone in loud voice standing in the road
side balcony so that people sitting in pan-gumty and passers-by could listen.
It was so done with object to defame the respondent’s family and to irritate
respondent’s mother that she could react to the false allegations with sole
object to put the respondent’s family in jail. In course of above the petitioner
in the first week of June, 2018 in frequent occasion given ultimatum not to
come back at her matrimonial home till old ailing female members be
thrown out thereby left her matrimonial home from Bankura on 09.06.2018
with the baby and all valuable belongings with additional threat of throwing
of bullet of law from Rampurhat Court.
3.5 Thereby finding no alternative respondent, for getting rescue from
everyday peacelessness, filed a Matrimonial Suit No.263 of 2018 at Bankura
for judicial separation on 25.07.2018 and receiving the Court’s notice of the
same, the petitioner severally attempted to harass the respondent by frequent
call through Dumka Police. The petitioner has instituted this case for
maintenance which she could have prayed before Bankura Court under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, although there was no such necessity
as the respondent severally sent monetary assistance to the petitioner but in
every time that has been willfully refused by the petitioner. As a matter of
fact, there was never any negligence on the part of the respondent, yet the
petitioner left her matrimonial home on 09.06.2018 at her own volition.
3.6 The petitioner is highly educated and she wants to lead her life as per
her own choice thereby has instituted this case with mala fide exaggeration
about her need and the ability of the respondent only for the purpose of
leading luxurious life in ultra-modern means. The prayer of petitioner does
not match with the law as she has every ability to earn, yet the respondent
poses mentality to look after the basic needs of his spouse and kid, but the
petitioner’s only intention is to put the respondent in hardship and
harassment.
4. On behalf of the petitioner in oral evidence examined P.W.-1, Piyali
Ray Chatterjee; P.W.-2, Bishwaranjan Chatterjee; P.W.-3, Santosh
Thakur and; P.W.-4, Debranjan Chatterjee and in documentary evidence
filed the certified copy of original petition of Matrimonial Suit No.263 of
2018 in the Court of learned District Judge, Bankura.
5. On behalf of the respondent in oral evidence examined R.W.-1,
Nandopaul Pandey; R.W.-2, Nimai Chandra Ghoshal and R.W.-3,
Rudra Narayan Ray. In documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent
filed salary slip of the month of July-August, 2021 marked as Exhibit A
and A/1, income tax return of the year 2020-2021 marked as Exhibit B,
statement of bank account in eight pages marked as Exhibit-C,
photocopy of the receipt of school fee of Punya Prasoon Ray marked as
Exhibit- D, D/1 to D/2 in three pages, xerox copy of order of Civil Judge
(Additional Court), Bankura in informatory petition dated 04.09.2021
marked as Exhibit-E and xerox paper of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.5025 of 2019 marked as Exhibit-F.
6. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka after hearing the rival submissions of the parties passed the impugned judgment on 21.01.2022, whereby the maintenance application was allowed. The
respondent-Rudra Narayan Ray was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month
to his wife Piyali Ray Chatterjee and Rs.15,000/- per month to the minor son
Punya Prasoon Ray since 10.09.2018. The arrears amount was directed to be
paid in 12 equal installments per month since the date of order, failing
which, the same would be realized from the respondent through the process
of law.
7. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the instant Criminal
Revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner-Rudra Narayan Ray
on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is
bad in the eyes of law. The learned Court below failed to consider the
conduct of the opposite party No.1 Piyali Ray Chatterjee. The learned Court
below did not take into consideration that the opposite party No.1 had been
getting maintenance in two different provisions under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and another under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Criminal Revision
and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and perused the materials available on
record.
9. For disposal of this Criminal Revision following point of
determination are being framed:
(i) Whether the opposite party No.1-wife has refused to live
with her husband without any sufficient cause, if so its
effect?
(ii) Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the
learned Court below for the opposite party No.1-wife and
her son is disproportionate in view of the income and the
liability of the petitioner-husband?
10. On the first point of determination, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the opposite party No.1-wife has declined to
serve the old aged mother and the maternal grandmother of the petitionerhusband.
She also insisted to live separate from his mother and maternal
grandmother and the same was not agreed by the petitioner, with that reason,
she created strained atmosphere in the family and she willingly left the
matrimonial house and went to her parental house along with son. The
petitioner made effort to bring her back, but she refused to come and,
ultimately, the petitioner had to file the suit under Section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for judicial separation in order to restore peace in the family.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1-wife has
contended that the opposite party No.1-wife never declined to serve the old
aged mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law. She was taunted for
less dowry of demand of Rs.5 lakhs, for non-fulfillment of the same, she was
tortured, harassed and she was also compelled to live the matrimonial house.
Since June, 2018, she had been residing at her parental house along with the
child, as such, she also filed the case under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code against her husband, in which, the bail was granted to him.
Therefore, the wife is not residing separately from her husband without any
sufficient reason.
12. On this point of determination on behalf of the opposite party No.1-
wife in oral evidence examined P.W.-1, Piyali Ray Chatterjee; P.W.-2,
Bishwaranjan Chatterjee; P.W.-3, Santosh Thakur and; P.W.-4,
Debranjan Chatterjee.
12.1 P.W.-1, Piyali Ray Chatterjee, in her examination-in-chief, says that
she was married with Rudra Narayan Ray on 11.05.2013 according to Hindu
rites and rituals. After marriage, she went to her in-law’s house and
resided well for 5 years 2 months. A son was also born, namely, Punya
Prasoon Ray, who is aged 4 years 7 months now. Even after the marriage,
her mother-in-law, her husband and her maternal grandmother-in-law began
to harass her and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home on
09.06.2019. She left the matrimonial home along with kid. On 26.08.2018,
her husband came to her parental house and made demand of Rs.5 lakhs and
quarrel arose there. On raising hulla, they fled away after having criminally
intimidated her. Her husband has also filed a suit for judicial separation. Her
husband is Assistant Professor in Sammelani Medical College, Pathology
Department, Bakula. In the ground floor there is also a pathology in the
name of her father-in-law. Her father-in-law died in the year 2008. Her
husband has also a flat in Kolkata, from which, Rs.50,000/- per month rent is
being received. After the death of her father-in-law, her mother is getting
family pension of Rs.50,000/- per month. Her husband is getting
Rs.1,50,000/- per month as salary and has income of Rs.2 lakhs from
pathology clinic. Her husband earns totally Rs.4,50,000/- per month. She
does nothing. In cross-examination, this witness says that her mother-in-law
is 70 years old and her maternal grandmother-in-law is 94 years old. Her
husband looks after his mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law. She
lived in her matrimonial house till 09.06.2018. Thereafter, she has been
residing at her parental house till date. She did not come on account of her
own volition rather she wants to live with her husband, if he agrees. She has
filed a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also for
maintenance against her husband. It was filed after the filing of the suit
under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation by her
husband. In that case, she has also filed an application for maintenance
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She is M.Sc in Zoology but
does nothing. It is wrong to say that this is not the fact that she does not want
to serve her mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law and she
misbehaved with them and also lived in the matrimonial house along with
kid. It is also wrong to say that she did not go to her sasural even on
repeated request made by her husband and, ultimately, the husband had filed
the suit for judicial separation.
12.2 P.W.-2, Bishwaranjan Chatterjee, in his examination-in-chief, says
that Piyali Ray Chatterjee is his daughter. His daughter lived in her
matrimonial house for five years tolerating the tortures and she has a son
aged about 4 years and 7 months, namely, Punya Prasoon Ray. She was
compelled to leave the matrimonial house. Her husband is Assistant
Professor gets Rs.1,50,000/- per month salary. He also carries on pathology,
in the name and style of Dr. Basant Rai. He has also a flat in Kolkata. The
mother of his son-in-law also receives pension. The total income of his sonin-
law is Rs.4-5 lakhs per month. His son-in-law made demand of Rs.1 lakh.
In cross-examination, this witness says that it is wrong to say that his
daughter does not want to serve her mother-in-law and maternal
grandmother-in-law. It is also wrong to say that she leaved the matrimonial
house on account of her volition.
12.3 P.W.-3, Santosh Thakur, in his examination-in-chief, says that he is
the friend of the brother of Piyali Ray Chatterjee. He has gone to in-law’s
house of Piyali Ray Chatterjee. Dr. Rudra Narayan Ray carries a pathology
clinic at his house and he is a doctor. Piyali Ray Chatterjee does nothing.
12.4. P.W.-4, Debranjan Chatterjee, in his examination-in-chief, says that
Piyali Ray Chatterjee is his sister. She has been residing in parental house at
Maluti since June, 2018. She does nothing. She lived well in her maternal
house for five years. In the meantime, she used to come to parental house
also. Piyali Ray Chatterjee is M.sc in Zoology but she does nothing because
her husband does not like for doing job by her. It is wrong to say that his
sister does not want to serve the old aged mother-in-law and maternal
grandmother-in-law.
13. On behalf of the petitioner-husband in maintenance case examined
R.W.-1, Nandopaul Pandey; R.W.-2, Nimai Chandra Ghoshal and R.W.-
3, Rudra Narayan Ray.
13.1 R.W.-1, Nandopaul Pandey, in his examination-in-chief, says that he
knows Rudra Narayan Ray and his mother and maternal grandmother are
alive, who are 75 years old and 95 years old respectively and both reside
with Rudra Narayan Rai. The wife of Rudra Narayan did not look after her
mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law. On this very issue, the
dispute arose between Rudra Narayan Ray and his wife. The wife of Rudra
Narayan Ray left her matrimonial home on account of her own volition.
In cross-examination, this witness says that Piyali Ray Chatterjee had
asked Rudra Narayan to live separate from her mother and maternal
grandmother on the same issue there was dispute between them. His
house is in the very mohalla, wherein Dr. Rudra Narayan Ray resides. It
is wrong to say that the dowry was demanded and for the same, Piyali Rai
Chatterjee was tortured with the reason she was compelled to leave the
matrimonial house.
13.2 R.W.-2, Nimai Chandra Ghoshal, in his examination-in-chief, says
that he knows Rudra Narayan Ray. His mother is 73 years old and his
maternal grandmother is 93 years old. Rudra Narayan Rai looks after them.
Piyali Ray Chatterjee does not want to live with him and does not want
to serve her old aged mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law.
She wanted to live separate and had left the matrimonial home of her
own will. In cross-examination, this witness says that Piyali Ray
Chatterjee does not want to serve her mother-in-law and maternal
grandmother-in-law, was not told him by any one rather he knows
because he usually goes to the house of Dr. Rudra Narayan Ray.
13.3 D.W.-3, Rudra Narayan Ray, in his examination-in-chief, says that
his wife left the matrimonial home on 09.06.2018 on her own will without
any reasonable cause. His wife left the matrimonial house due to
unbearable cruel behaviour caused by her as the unreasonable demand
for nuclear family abandoning old aged and ailing 72 years old maternal
grandmother-in-law 94 years. Several attempts were made by him to make
her understand, but all efforts futile. Ultimately, he has to file a suit under
Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. In order to
save her skin, his wife filed a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code against him and his mother-in-law, in which, he and his mother both
were granted anticipatory bail by the interference of Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. His wife is postgraduate
in Zoology. He gets Rs.68,000/- per month salary. He does not
have the income of Rs.4,50,000/-. He has no personal clinic or private
practice other than the service. As a matter of fact, he has no other source of
income except salary form his service. In cross-examination, this witness
says that he has filed a suit for judicial separation against his wife. His son is
6 years old resides with her mother. His wife left matrimonial house on
09.06.2018 and he made effort to bring her back but she refused to
come. He is pathologist doctor and Assistant Professor, in Bankula
Sammelani Medical College, Pathology Department. His son studies in
Class-I. The clinic, which was in name of his father the same is run by
his mother. His house is three story. His wife resided with him for five
years. His wife did not care him, in this context, he made effort to resolve
the dispute 3-4 times. It is wrong to say that he physically or mentally
tortured his wife. The flat, which is in Kolkata is in the name of his
father, in which, there is share of mother and sister as well. This flat is
vacant. It is also wrong to say that he earns Rs.4,50,000/- per month.
14. From the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is found
that his wife left the matrimonial house on 09.06.2018 of her own will
though the wife, who has examined herself as P.W.-1, Piyali Ray
Chatterjee says that she was tortured for less dowry and a demand of Rs.5
lakhs was made, with this reason, she left the matrimonial house. P.W.-2,
Bishwaranjan Chatterjee, who is the father of Piyali Ray Chatterjee says
that a demand of Rs.1 lakh was made by his son-in-law and his mother, for
the same, his daughter was tortured, so she was ousted. P.W.-3, Santosh
Thakur nowhere says in regard to any torture being made to Piyali Ray
Chatterjee for any demand. P.W.-4, Debranjan Chatterjee, who is the
brother of Piyali Ray Chatterjee says that his sister remained well for five
years in her matrimonial home. He nowhere in his statement says that his
sister was tortured for any demand of dowry during five years rather he says
that after August, 2018, the demand of money was made.
15. Admittedly, Piyali Ray Chatterjee has also filed a case under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and mother-in-law. This
case was filed after instituting the suit by Rudra Narayan Ray under Section
10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation.
16. To the contrary, on behalf of the husband R.W.-1, Nandopaul Pandey
was examined in oral evidence. This witness is the neighbour of Rudra
Narayan Ray. He has stated that he has visiting terms to the house of Rudra
Narayan Ray and he has personal knowledge that the wife of Rudra
Narayan Ray, namely, Piyali Ray Chatterjee did not want to serve her
old aged mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law aged about
75 years and 95 years respectively. She used to create pressure upon her
husband to reside separate from her mother-in-law and maternal
grandmother-in-law. She willingly left the matrimonial home. R.W.-2,
Nimaichandra Ghoshal is also the neighbour of Dr. Rudra Narayan Ray.
This witness says that he has also visiting terms to the house of Rudra
Narayan Rai and he knows that Piyali Ray Chatterjee did not like to
serve her old aged mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law.
She had asked her husband to live separate, when the same was not
agreed by her husband, with this reason left the matrimonial house of
her own will in June, 2018. P.W.-3, Rudra Narayan Ray, in his
examination-in-chief, says that his wife did not like to serve his mother 75
years old and maternal grandmother-in-law 95 years old. She flatly
refused despite making best effort to make her understand and she also
created pressure upon him to live separate from them, the same was not
agreed by him, with this reason, he began to remain in mental
depression and even after the son was born, the wife used to go to her
parental house along with kid and she did not permit his mother-in-law
and maternal grandmother-in-law to touch the son, she also did not share
the dinner with him, his mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law. As
such, she used to create pressure to live separate and she was not willing
to serve her mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law.
Ultimately, he had to file a suit for judicial separation, the copy of same is on
record. This suit was filed by him and after filing the suit, his wife filed a
case against him and his mother under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code on the false allegation and also the maintenance case under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and maintenance application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A suit for judicial separation under
Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Court of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bankura. He also says that he
made effort to bring back his wife but his wife denied to come back and
she obstinate in not to serve his mother and maternal grandmother, so
he had filed the suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
judicial separation.
17. From the oral evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is
proved that the wife has left the matrimonial house of her own will and
its only reason that she did not want to serve her old aged mother-in-law
and maternal grandmother-in-law and she created pressure upon her
husband to live separate from them, the same was not agreed by her
husband. This fact is well proved not only from the testimony of R.W.-3,
Rudra Narayan Ray but also from the testimony of R.W.-1, Nandopaul
Pandey and R.W.-2 Nimaichandra Ghosal, who are the neighbours
resides in the same locality, wherein Dr. Rudra Naryan Ray resides. To
the contrary, the allegations of demand of dowry is belies from the
statement of the witnesses of the Piyali Ray Chatterjee. Piyali Ray
Chatterjee says that the demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs was made while
father says that demand of dowry of Rs.1 lakhs was made while his
brother says that no demand was made for five years and after August,
2018, the demand of dowry was made. The independent witness says
nothing in regard to the alleged demand of dowry and torture of her
and the case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was filed just
after filing the suit by the her husband Rudra Narayan Ray under
Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which shows that the same case
was filed as a counter blast case in order to teach lesson to her husband.
The intent of Rudra Narayan Ray is also apparent that he has filed the
suit for judicial separation not for the divorce because he wanted to
keep her wife with him but she was adamant to live separate without
any reasonable cause in her parental house.
18. From perusal of the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for judicial separation, it is found that Rudra Narayan Ray has filed the
same on the very ground that his wife did not like to serve his mother and
maternal grandmother, who are old aged and she used to create pressure
upon him to live separate from them. There is no contradiction in the
grounds, which were in the case of judicial separation and the defence,
which is taken by Rudra Narayan Ray in the maintenance case. As such, it is
proved that the wife of the petitioner has been residing separate without any
sufficient cause from her husband.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Vs. K. Meena
reported in (2016) 2 CLR 947 (SC) held that persistent effort of the wife to
constrain her husband to be separated from the family constitute an act of
‘cruelty’. Paragraph No.11 reads as under:
“11.The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated
from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually
maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a
common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to
get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance
of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in
the family. A son, brought up and given education
SC4603 by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take
care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when
they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India,
generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where,
upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated
from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be
with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes
integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and
normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never
insist that her husband should get separated from the family and
live only with her. In the instant case, upon appreciation of the
evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for
monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her
husband separated from his family. The averment of the Respondent
was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for
maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is
absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely
normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for
which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from
the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the
Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a
justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a
legitimate expectation to see that the income of her husband is used
for her and not for the family members of the Respondent husband.
We do not see any reason to justify the said view of the High Court.
As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of
the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to
deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society,
she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we
do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of
the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would
tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old
parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon
his income. The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain
the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous
for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when
it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of 'cruelty'.”
20. Herein, it would be pertinent to quote the relevant text of
“Introduction of Family Life Education” written by Prof. Teresa Chacko, Cochin, page No.71 to 85 read as under:
“Role Expectations in Marital Life
Shakespeare wrote that the world is a stage upon which men and
women are acting out the drama of life.
The same thing can be said of marriages. There are many
cultural and social expectations about appropriate behaviour for
males and females. The goals, purposes and functions in
marriage can be achieved only when each family member plays
his or her particular role.
The industrial revolution, emancipation of women, urbanization,
employment of women, preoccupation of men with career etc. are
some factors which have left their imprint upon family roles.
Leadership role:
The man is also entrusted with the role of leader and supervisor
of all family endeavours. For the child, his/her first heroes will
be his/her own parents, particularly the father who holds the
position of authority in the family.
Role as a husband:
As a husband he has the role of sex partner, companion,
confidant, decision maker and accountant. He must train himself
to be a better observer so that he can be of great help to his wife.
He must notice his wife and praise her performance and ability.
He should also give emotional support to her.
Traditional roles:
The woman is biologically, psychologically and emotionally
prepared for motherhood. She is trained to carry out the roles of
birth, nurture, protection, gratification and giving comfort to
children and men. In the life of woman, these functions are given
priority over all other engagements. According to the traditional
role expectations, she is oriented towards rearing capable
children, helping her husband to achieve the goals of the family
and being useful to the community in which she lives. But are all
women satisfied with this role concept? Talented and ambitious
women, in addition to these functions, want to develop their
special aptitudes.
Role as wife:
As a wife, she is expected to be an affectionate companion, a
good sex partner, confidant and social secretary of her husband.
She has to take charge of the social life of the couple. She should
develop interest in her husband’s work. She should be able to
understand his world of activities. Moreover, she should be able
to give intellectual companionship to her husband.
Reasons for Role Changes
Today family roles are changing largely because they have
become less appropriate for the social and economic realities of
the modern world. Most of the families are small in size and
more women are employed. We can see changes in the styles of
femininity as well as masculinity. The man is not maintaining the
image of the brave, strong, tough, aggressive male of the past.
The gentle, passive, submissive female is a character of
yesterday. Opportunities are open for both sexes in education,
work and family life. So greater flexibility is required in the role
expectations of husbands and wives.
Woman’s expectations of man’s role
………
A woman still expects many of these traits in a man. Many
women still want the male to be strong and at times they want to
depend upon males. They still admire and feel safe with a strong
male. The man has to exhibit some courage and strength to meet
the role expectations of his wife.
What do husbands expect from the wife?
The wife should become the companions of the husband. She is
expected to give love and affection to him. He expects an equal
sharing of responsibilities. He expects cooperation, support and
recognition for his efforts.
Reasons for Role Conflicts
No two persons are exactly alike. There are differences in
attitudes, behaviour and beliefs. Husbands and wives gather
different role concepts from their families. For success in
marriage, each one has to produce in his/ her personality some
resemblance of the partner’s image of a man/woman. They
have to change their values, attitudes and behaviour to fit in
with the new role concepts.
Role conflicts are brought about by the strain put upon the wife
in meeting the role expectations of her husband and his family
and in adapting to the demands of his work. The husband also
faces problems when his wife is having an established role in her
life.
How can we resolve role conflicts?
In marriage, spouses are involved in the lives of each other.
Hence disagreement in some areas is inevitable. How couple
manage conflicts is more important.
Conflict Management
There are many ways in which conflicts can be managed by the
couple. In the first method, compatibility can be achieved when
one partner is dominant and he/she attempts to get the other
person comply with his/her desires and the partner agrees and
accepts the complementary role. But when the disagreement is
very strong and both partners are not willing to give in, tension
is intensified. They may emotionally withdraw from each other’s
relationships without finding out an actual solution for the
problem.
Personality factors in relation to role expectation
………Success in marriage can be attained when the couple
respects the characteristic qualities which nature has given to
each of them and when they adhere to their respective roles.
……….
Relations with in-laws
Marriage joins not only the man and woman together, but their
families also. Hence, in-laws are the new relatives acquired
through marriage. You may wonder whether in-laws are
bringing problems to every marriage.
The relationship with in-laws may bring about problems in
some marriages. The circumstance in which each person lives
is different. If the son-in-law or daughter-in-law fits in with the
expectations of the respective family he/she will be accepted
easily. Otherwise, problems may arise.”
21. In view of the above in the case in hand, the issue between the
husband and wife is that the wife is not agree to serve the old aged mother in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law, who are respectively 75 years and 95 years old. She creates pressure upon her husband to live separate from his mother and maternal grandmother. It is the very reason; this ground is not found sufficient that’s why the legislature while enacted under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided one of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause.
22. In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein
the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f),
it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite
culture’. It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or
grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this
culture. It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother
and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live
separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-inlaw.
Accordingly, the point of determination No.1 is decided in favourt
of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party No.1-wife.
23. Herein, it would be pertinent to quote the lines of Yajurveda, which
read as under:
“O woman you do not deserve to be defeated by challenges. You
can defeat the mightiest challenge. Defeat the enemies and their
armies you have valour of thousand.” (Yajurveda 13/26)
23.1 Herein, it would also be pertinent to quote the lines of Rigveda:
“O brilliant woman, remove ignorance with your bright intellect
and provides bliss to all.” (Rigveda 4/14/3)
23.2 Herein, it would also be pertinent to quote the lines of Manu:
शोच जामयो य िवनाशु तत् कु लम् ।
न शोच तु यैता वधते तद् िह सवदा ॥ ५७ ॥
“Where the women of the family are miserable, the family is soon destroyed, but it always thrives where the women are
contended.” (Manusmriti 3:57)
23.3 Herein, it would be pertinent to quote the lines of Brihat Samhita:
“In no world has Brahma created a gem superior to woman
(stri), whose speech, sight, touch, thought, provoke
pleasurable sensations. Such a gem in the shape of a woman
is the fruit of a person’s good, deeds, and from such a gem a
person obtains both sons and pleasure. A woman, therefore,
resembles the goddess of wealth in a family, and must be
treated with respect, and all her wants must be satisfied.”
(Brihat Samhita 73:4)
24. In addition herein, this Court expect from both the parties to resolve
their differences as stated hereinabove and live together for the welfare of
son by adducing a settlement in judicial separation proceeding under Section
10 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending between them.
25. On second point of determination i.e. ‘whether the quantum of
maintenance awarded by the learned Court below for the opposite party
No.1-wife and her son is disproportionate in view of the income and the
liability of the petitioner-husband?’ on behalf of the opposite party No.1-
wife, it has been stated that her husband is an Assistant Professor in Bankura
Sammelani Medical College, Pathology Department and he is getting salary
of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. A pathology clinic is also being run by the name
of the father of her husband, from which, there is income of Rs.2 lakhs per
month. Rs.50,000/- is receiving from the flat situated in Kolkata, which has
been given on rent. Her mother-in-law also getting Rs.50,000/- per month
family pension, therefore, total income is shown Rs.4,50,000/-. On this very
issue, she has examined as P.W.-1, Piyali Ray Chatterjee, P.W.-2, Bishwa
Ranjan Chatterjee, her father and P.W.-3, Santosh Thakur and independent
witness P.W.-4, Debranjan Chatterjee, her brother, who have also
corroborated this averment.
26. To the contrary, the husband Rudra Narayan Ray has stated in his
pleadings, that he has no source of income except the salary being an
Assistant Professor, from which, he is getting Rs.68,900/- but in his
statement R.W.-3, Rudra Narayan Ray has admitted that he is a pathologist
doctor in Bankura Sammelani Medical College, pathology department. His
father was also a doctor. He is getting salary or Rs.68,900/-. The pathology
clinic is being run by his mother. He also admits that he has flat in Kolkata
but the same was in the name of his father, mother and sister, who have
vested right and the same is vacant. He also admits that her mother gets
family pension. The fact of the salary being in particular knowledge of the
husband in order to prove the same fact of income, he has filed the salary
slip marked as Exhibit-A and A/1. From perusal of the same, the net salary is
Rs.68,565 after all reduction. The income tax return is also marked as
Exhibit-B.
27. In view of the evidence adduced oral as well as documentary, the
husband is found to have sufficient means. His salary is Rs.68,565/- per
month, this is his personal income, but the income of family is also from the
pathological clinic and his mother also gets family pension. In view of the
above, the learned Court below had directed the petitioner Rudra Narayan
Ray to pay Rs.15,000/- per month for the minor son from the date of
application i.e. 10.09.2018 and Rs.30,000/- per month to the wife Piyali Ray
Chatterjee.
28. In view of the disposal of point of determination No.1, the wife is
not entitled to any amount of maintenance. Herein, only the amount
awarded for maintenance to the son is to be considered whether the same is
proportionate in view of the income of the petitioner-Rudra Narayan Ray.
Herein, it would be pertinent to mention that in proceeding under Section 10
of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. Admittedly, the wife has
also filed a maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. On behalf of the petitioner-husband in the Criminal Revision, the
photocopy of order dated 30.04.2021 passed in J. Misc. No.6030 of 2018, in
which, the proceeding under Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge
(Redesignated Court), Bankura has also directed the husband to pay the
maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.5000/- per
month for the minor son since the date of application i.e. 24.12.2018. In
view of this order, it is also evident that the petitioner Rudra Narayan Ray
has also been paying Rs.5000/- per month to the son in the proceeding under
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act in compliance of the order dated
30.04.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Redesignated
Court), Bankura. In view of the above, taking into consideration the
financial means of the petitioner Rudra Narayan Ray, it will be appropriate
herein to enhance the amount of maintenance for the son from
Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month. Accordingly, this point
of determination is also disposed of as stated hereinabove.
29. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Court
below needs interference and this Criminal Revision deserves to be partly
allowed.
30. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Criminal Revision
is hereby partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned
Court below is set aside up to the extent of awarding maintenance to the
wife; while the impugned judgment is modified increasing the maintenance
amount for minor son from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month.
31. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court
concerned through ‘FAX’
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Madhav/- A.F.R.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment