The Jharkhand High Court issued a ruling on Monday in response to a criminal revision appeal filed by a man challenging a Rs 30,000 maintenance order for his wife and Rs 15,000 for his minor kid.

The Jharkhand High Court denied maintenance to the wife, stating that it is part of Indian tradition "to serve the old" and that it is "obligatory on the part of the wife" to assist the husband's mother or grandmother and not to insist on "unreasonable demand to live separately".

The husband, an assistant professor, filed a petition in the Jharkhand High Court challenging a Family Court judgement in Dumka, stating that the lower court "failed to consider the conduct" of his wife, a medical practitioner.

According to the court records, the pair married in 2013. However, the lady allegedly refused to stay with her in-laws and said that her husband demanded money.

The High Court addressed two problems at hand. Firstly,  whether the woman refused to live with the husband without a valid reason. Second, determine whether the maintenance award is overbearing to the petitioner-husband's income and liabilities.

There was no dowry demand

After hearing arguments, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that the lady had left the marital residence of her own accord because she did not want to serve her elderly mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law. According to the court, the lady put pressure on her husband to live away from his family, which he did not agree to. The wife began living separately in 2018, according to court filings. The court stated that many witnesses testified that there was no dowry demand.

Justice Subhash Chand of the Jharkhand High Court stated, “In the Constitution of India…the fundamental duties of the citizens of India are enumerated…it is provided ‘to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture’. It is the culture in India to serve the old mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may be by the wife in order to preserve this culture. It was obligatory on the part of the wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist on unreasonable demands to live separate from his old-aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law. Accordingly, the point of determination number 1 (sufficient cause in living separately) is decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party, ie wife,”

The HC then cited verses from the Yajurveda, Rigveda, and Manusmriti. “…It would also be pertinent to quote the lines of Rigveda, ‘O brilliant woman, remove ignorance with your bright intellect and provide bliss to all’ (Rigveda 4/14/3)… It would also be pertinent to quote the lines of Manu… ‘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)’”.

The Jharkhand HC then reviewed the man's financial situation and increased the amount of support for the kid from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000 per month.

“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,” Justice Subhash Chand explained.

You might also be interested in -SC refuses relief to Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren against ED summons