'Obligatory For Woman To Serve Elderly Mother-In-Law, It Is A Part Of Indian Culture; Demand To Live Separately Is Unreasonable': Jharkhand HC

To opine thus, the court referred to Clause (f) of Article 51-A of the Constitution of India [fundamental duties of the citizen of India 'to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture'].

The Court made these observations while partly allowing a Criminal Revision plea filed by a husband challenging an order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka directing him 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.

The Court noted that in the instant case, the wife left the matrimonial house in June 2018 and thereafter, refused to come back and the husband had filed a suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation on the very ground that his wife did not like to serve his old-aged mother and maternal grandmother and used to create pressure upon him to live separate from them.

In its order, after examining the oral evidence presented by both parties, the court determined that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial house. The established reason for her departure was her reluctance to fulfil the responsibility of caring for her elderly mother-in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law. She exerted pressure on her husband to live separately, a proposition that was not accepted by him.

The Court further noted that this fact was well proved that the intent of the revisionist was also apparent that he had filed the suit for judicial separation not for the divorce because he wanted to keep her wife with him but she was adamant about living separately without any reasonable cause in her parental house.

In this regard, the Court referred to Apex Court's observations made in Narendra Vs. K. Meena reported (2016) wherein it was held that persistent efforts of the wife to constrain her husband to be separated from the family constituted an act of 'cruelty'.

Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that it was proved that the wife of the petitioner had been residing separately without any sufficient cause from her husband and hence, as per Section 125 (4) CrPC, she was not entitled to any maintenance given that she refused to reside with the husband “without any reasonable cause”.

Further, the Court also stressed the “obligation” on the part of the wife to serve her husband's mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist on “unreasonable demands” to live separately from his old-aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law.

Further, the Court also quoted from Yajurveda, Rigveda, Manu & Brihat Samhita.

“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)

“O brilliant woman, remove ignorance with your bright intellect and provides bliss to all.” (Rigveda 4/14/3)

शोचन्ति जामयो यत्र विनश्यत्याशु तत्कुलम्। न शोचन्ति तु यत्रैता वर्धते तद्धि सर्वदा। “Where the women of the family are miserable, the family is - 22 - soon destroyed, but it always thrives where the women are contended.” (Manusmriti 3:57)

“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)

Consequently, the Court was left with only one question - as to whether the amount awarded for maintenance to the son was proportionate to the income of the petitioner/revisionist.

Taking into consideration the financial means of the petitioner, the Court found it appropriate to direct the revisionist to enhance the amount of maintenance for the son from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Revision was partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside up to the extent of awarding maintenance to the wife; while the impugned judgment was modified increasing the maintenance amount for the minor son from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month.