In the matter of Ranjeeta v State of UP The Trial Court is not prohibited from granting maintenance from the date of the order if there are circumstances and reasons for doing so, Jyotsna Sharma, J. held in a criminal revision filed against the order passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, wherein the husband has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to his wife.
The wife has contested the contested order for the following two reasons: Since the maintenance request was made on January 9, 2020, and a decision was made over two years later, the court was not justified in giving maintenance as of the order date. Given that her husband is currently employed by the government as a Sub Inspector, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 7000 cannot be deemed suitable because he receives a salary of Rs. 47,190 per month. The amount of maintenance is therefore relatively inadequate when compared to her husband’s monthly earnings.
The spouse said that he had expended a significant sum of money to resolve the conflict that had developed between his brother and his brother’s wife. With his brother, the revisionist engages in illegal relationships. In light of this, a criminal prosecution was filed against the revisionist and his brother under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860. Later, his brother’s wife filed for divorce from him, and the husband (the “respondent”) was ordered to pay alimony of Rs. 14 lacks.
Furthermore, he emphasised that the Trial Court had access to sufficient evidence to show that the wife was not entitled to any support payments and that the husband was the one who fell prey to the circumstances around him. It was further argued that even if it were assumed that she was entitled to the same, the amount of maintenance decided and the date of payment was perfectly justified because the husband was able to demonstrate that the financial burden of the divorce, which resulted from both the criminal and civil cases, fell on him as the family’s higher earner. The fact that he is also caring for his daughter was also mentioned.
The court ruled that the trial court had taken note of the unusual circumstances relating to the parties, his family members, and bearing the burden of complicated human relationships, as well as the repercussions of the criminal case and the divorce case that was fought between the husband’s brother and his wife. As a result, the court believed that the trial court’s justifications for choosing the amount of maintenance and grant from the order’s date were sound.
The court also cited Rajnesh v. Neha, in which it noted that the Supreme Court had not entirely curbed the Trial Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to give support beginning on the date of the decree if appropriate conditions and factors existed. The Trial Court has adopted a realistic perspective on the situation in light of the husband’s financial obligations and household duties. As a result, the powers have been used wisely, necessitating no interference with the order. he