Case Title: Raghubar Singh @ Raghuber Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and ors.
Case No: Cr. Revision No.10 of 2022
Decided on: 11th January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
Facts of the Case
The father filed a revision petition challenging a Family Court decision that mandated him to provide Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance for each of his two children. According to the wife, the petitioner, in addition to having a stable salary, earned income from ancestral agricultural land but had failed to support the children since she filed a dowry harassment complaint against him. Dissatisfied with the Family Court’s ruling, the husband appealed to the High Court, arguing that he was unemployed while his wife had been employed long before submitting the maintenance application.
Issue
The central matter revolves around the assessment of the husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for the minor children in light of the presented evidence and legal considerations.
Legal Provision
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code addresses the provision of maintenance for the wife, children, and parents. When invoked, the court can order the husband, who is the respondent, to provide monthly maintenance to his wife if she is unable to sustain herself. However, there is an exception – the husband must have sufficient means to support his wife after the separation, and the wife should not be living in adultery or separated without valid reasons. Even in cases of mutual consent for separation, the wife is not entitled to maintenance. The court, when favoring the wife, must ensure that the husband has the financial capacity to provide maintenance, and it is established that the wife lacks the means to support herself post-separation.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that a father is obligated to provide financial support for his children, regardless of the mother’s employment status. Justice Subhash Chand stated, “Even though the petitioner, the wife in the maintenance application, acknowledges an income of Rs.12 to 14 thousand per month, sustaining herself and both minor children, the father remains responsible for the maintenance of both children, irrespective of the wife Nibha Singh’s salary being taken into account.”
However, based on the evidence presented by both parties, the Court observed that the husband, formerly a Loan Manager in a Bank, currently holds a position in an NGO. The Court highlighted that the husband did not disclose his income, and as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof rested on him. Consequently, an adverse inference was drawn against him. The Court also noted from oral evidence that the husband did not deny an annual income of Rs.10 lakh from agricultural land. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the husband’s sole responsibility in the family was to support his two children.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad
