Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

While dealing with a man's appeal against spousal maintenance, the Jharkhand High Court observed that it was his wife who had insisted on living independently from his mother and ailing grandmother, therefore, she was not entitled to any amount of maintenance.

The bench of Justice Subhash Chand quoted Yajurveda, Rigveda and Manu and opined that it was obligatory on the part of the wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother.

"In the 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 be by the wife in order to preserve this culture," the judge added. 

Court pointed out that in the case at hand, the issue between the husband and wife was that the wife did not agree to serve the old aged mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law of the husband, and for this reason, she created pressure upon her husband to live separate from his mother and maternal grandmother.

"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," court stated while setting aside the order passed by the court below allowing maintenance to the wife. 

However, court upheld maintenance for the man's minor son, residing with the wife, and also increased the monthly amount from Rs.15,000 to Rs.25,000.

It was wife's case that she left her marital residence due to harassment and dowry-related torture by her husband and mother-in-law, both of whom were doctors. On the contrary, the husband contended that his wife voluntarily left his house because he denied separating from his 75-year-old mother and 95-year-old ailing maternal grandmother.

On the wife's application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Dumka Family Court had ordered the man to provide Rs.30,000 monthly for the wife and Rs.15,000 monthly for the maintenance of their 4-year-old son. 

In appeal, the husband argued that the order for maintenance was not just as the wife had left the house on her own will. Additionally, he argued that, being a postgraduate in Zoology, she was fully capable of sustaining herself financially.

Case Title: Rudra Narayan Ray v. Piyali Ray Chatterjee and Another