In a most significant development, we saw how as recently as on January 22, 2024, the Jharkhand High Court in a most progressive, pragmatic and path breaking judgment titled Rudra Narayan Ray vs Piyali Ray Chatterjee in Criminal Revision No. 172 of 2022 has held most explicitly without mincing any words that, "According to Indian culture, a married woman is expected to serve her aged mother-in-law and she must adhere to the same to preserve the culture." It must be laid bare here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhash Chand made the key observation while holding clearly that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she leaves her husband without any reasonable cause. No denying it!
What must be paid maximum attention is that the Bench made it absolutely clear that it is obligatory on the part of a wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and she should not insist on living separately from them. It also must be taken into account that the Bench relied upon Article 51A of the Constitution to buttress its point! Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhash Chand of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "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."
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, "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."
Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, "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?"
Resultantly, the Bench points out in para 21 that, "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."
Most commendably, the Bench then mandates in para 22 that, "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-in-law. Accordingly, the point of determination No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party No.1-wife."
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 25 that, "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."
Most significantly, the Bench propounds in para 28 that, "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."
As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 29 that, "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."
What’s more, the Bench further directs in para 30 that, "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."
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 31 that, "Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court concerned through ‘FAX’."
All told, the Ranchi High Court has made it indubitably clear that as per Indian culture, a married woman must serve an aged mother-in-law. It is definitely high time now and all married woman must pay heed to what the Court has held in this leading case. No denying it!
