Wednesday, 21 February 2024

Whether the family court should refuse to give maintenance to wife if she is not ready to serve husband’s mother and maternal grandmother?

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􀅩 िवन􀊴􀈑ाशु तत् कु लम् ।

न शोच􀄰􀈶 तु य􀅩ैता वध􀅊ते तद् िह सव􀅊दा ॥ 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