2026:JHHC:3552-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. (DB) No. 160 of 2023 ------------ 1. Om Prakash Gupta, aged about 55 years, son of Late Badri Prasad Gupta, resident of Village Kairodih, P.O. Deori, P.S. Deori, Sub- Division Giridih, District Giridih, presently residing at C/o Sahdev Ray, at Karnibad Road, near Harizan Colony, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. Pushpa Devi, wife of Om Prakash Gupta. 2. Manisha Kumari, daughter of Om Prakash Gupta. Both are residents of Village Raikinari, P.O. Raikinari, P.S. Taljhari, District Dumka. Permanent residents of Village Kairodih, P.O. and P.S. Deori, Ditrict Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioners/Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pratik Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate ---------------------------- 16/Dated: 10th February, 2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment dated 17.04.2023 (Decree dated 29.04.2023) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Original Suit No.119 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioners, respondents herein under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 has been allowed and directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife during her lifetime and Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-daughter till her marriage from the date of filing of the original suit, i.e., from 06.04.2019. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 2 Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petition filed by the petitioners (respondents herein) required to be enumerated, as under: 3. It is the case that the petitioner No.1, Pushpa Devi (respondent-wife herein) is the legally married wife of the respondent, Om Prakash Gupta (appellant herein) and their marriage was solemnized on 16.07.1994 as per Hindu rituals and rites in the father's house of the petitioner No.1-wife at village Raikinari. 4. In course of time, the petitioner No.1-wife and respondent (husband) were blessed with a female child, Manisha Kumari (respondent no.2 herein) who has presently became of marriageable age. 5. It is the further case that the marital relation of petitioner No.1 and respondent-husband remained cordial only for about 2-3 years. The respondent is a man of desperate nature and he started to demand dowry and made several types of physical and mental torture to the petitioner, Pushpa Devi in various ways, due to which, the petitioner had filed a G.R. Case No.639/1999 against the respondent-husband which resulted in conviction of respondent under Section 498 A of the IPC which was upheld upto this Court. 6. It has been further said that the respondent (appellant herein) never kept his wife Pushpa Devi and his daughter properly. Earlier, the petitioner No.1 had filed the maintenance case No. 17 of 2001/21 of 2003 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in which the respondent was directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner No.1 Pushpa Devi @ Rs. 2000/- per month and the petitioner No. 2 Manisha 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 3 Kumari @ Rs. 500/- per month from the date of institution of the said case. But the respondent did not pay the due amount to the petitioners due to which the petitioners had filed a Matrimonial Execution Case No. 45/2007 for realization of due maintenance amount. 7. Subsequently, a compromise petition was filed in the said case and the respondent took away the petitioners No.1 & 2 with him by giving an undertaking to keep his wife and daughter well in his house. But, after one or two months, the respondent again started to tease and torture and demand dowry from the petitioner No.1/wife and further, he had solemnized his second marriage with one Sabita due to which the petitioner No.1, Pushpa Devi (resp. no.1 herein) had again filed a PCR Case No. 374/2007 against the respondent/husband. The said case was also got compromised by the respondent with petitioners by giving a false assurance that he will provide and give the entire expense for the marriage of his daughter Manisha Kumari. 8. The respondent/husband had filed a Matrimonial Divorce Suit No.177/2013 for getting divorce from his wife Pushpa Devi with an intention to legalize his second marriage with Sabita Devi. The said divorce suit was contested by the wife Pushpa Devi and ultimately it was dismissed by the court on 11.12.2018. 9. It is further said that the petitioners (respondent herein) have no means for their maintenance. The petitioner No.2 Manisha Kumari (respondent no.2 herein) is a student of B.A and she has become of marriageable age. The respondent has no care for the marriage of petitioner No. 2 (Kumari (respondent no.2 herein) nor he is paying or providing maintenance to the 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 4 petitioners in spite of this fact that the petitioners/wife and daughter have no income to maintain themselves. 10. The mother of petitioner No.1/wife has already expired and her father is too old and the brother of petitioner No. 1 namely, Sanjay Kumar has his own family and he has to incur the entire expense of his own family also. 11. The father of petitioner No.1 is unable to support the petitioners whereas the petitioner's husband is leading a happy and glorious life with his second illegal wife and children and he is not providing any maintenance to the petitioners. The respondent had compromised with the petitioner in earlier cases when he was sent to jail but after compromise, he again repeated his illegal deeds and committed fraud with his wife Pushpa Devi. 12. The petitioners (respondents herein) have no alternative for their livelihood except to file this suit. The respondent-husband(appellant herein) is a sound person having sufficient income as he runs a big cloth shop at Meena Bazar (Yatri Niwas) Deoghar from where he earns Rs. 5000-7000/- per day. Further, the respondent has 10 Bighas of land from where he earns Rs. 2 lac per year by growing agricultural crops. Apart from it, the respondent has a big house within the District Giridih also from where he earns Rs.10-12 thousand per month as rent. The respondent has many other businesses during the Sawan Mela and other special occasions from where he earns Rs. 1-2 lakh per annum. The cause of action for this suit arose on 14.01.2019 when the petitioner-wife demanded money for maintenance and for marriage of her daughter, 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 5 Manisha Kumari, the respondent, appellant herein refused to pay the same. 13. The petitioners (respondent herein) have no source of income whereas the respondent has so many sources of income and he is bound to maintain the petitioners and incur the liability of marriage of petitioner No. 2, Manisha Kumari but the respondent (appellant herein) is not maintaining the petitioners. 14. After service of summon, the respondent has appeared and contested this suit by filing a written statement stating therein that the petitioners' case is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. According to the respondent (appellant herein), the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners on false and frivolous grounds only with a view to harass and humiliate the respondent. There is no obligation of respondent to maintain the petitioners because the petitioner No.1 Pushpa Devi had got compromised the earlier Execution Case No. 45/2007 with the respondent before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka by filing a joint compromise petition on 01.07.2015 wherein it was admitted by the parties that the petitioner has received Rs.1 lac as permanent alimony and the petitioner or her daughter Manisha Kumari will have no claim of any type against the respondent in future. Apart from it, the petitioner no.1, Pushpa Kumari works as Sahayika in the Aaganbari Kendra and she is posted at village Raikinari, P.S Taljhari, District- Dumka from where she gets Rs. 3000/-per month. Further, the petitioner No. 2 Manisha Kumari is a teacher in a private school at Dumka and she gets Rs. 15000/- per month. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 6 16. It has been further said that the respondent is an old man aged about 62 years and he is suffering from ailments of old age like diabetes etc. and he is a heart patient also and he has no source of income to pay even a single penny in the name of maintenance. The petitioner had taken Rs.1 lac in PCR Case No. 374/2007 under Section 498A Indian Penal Code also and thereafter, she had compromised the said case in the Dumka Court. The petitioner is in habit of filing cases against the respondent (appellant herein) only with a view to harass and blackmail him and thereby extort money from him. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondent (appellant herein) has prayed to dismiss the suit. 17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by the learned Family Judge, which are as follows: - (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable for the reliefs claimed? (ii) Whether the petitioners have got a valid cause of action and right to sue the respondent? (iii) Whether the respondent has tortured the petitioner by mental or physical cruelty? (iv) Whether the respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioners in spite of having sufficient resource? (v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the respondent? If yes, then what should be the quantum of maintenance? 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 7 (vi) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs claimed or any other reliefs? (vii) Whether the compromise between the petitioner No.1 Pushpa Devi and respondent in Crl. Execution Case No.45/07 and PCR Case No.324/07 precludes the petitioners from claiming maintenance against the respondent under Section 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. 18. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed allowing the suit filed under Sections 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband: 19. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned Family Judge supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 20. It has further been submitted that the appellant-husband is an old man and he is suffering from various ailments like diabetes etc. and he is also the heart patient. He has no source of income to pay a single penny as maintenance. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 8 21. It has been contended that respondent-wife is having a habit of filing cases against the appellant-husband only to harass and humiliate him to extort money from him. 22. It has further been contended that the learned Family Court had erroneously considered the compromise between the parties in earlier cases lodged by the respondent (wife) while deciding the issue of maintenance. 23. It has been submitted that the learned family Court failed to appreciate that in view of compromise between the parties, respondents are not entitled for any maintenance under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act 1956. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 25. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered all the issues and came to the conclusion that wife and daughter is eligible for maintenance and hence, allowed the suit filed by the petitioners (respondents herein). 26. It has been contended that the appellant-husband never kept his wife, namely, Pushpa Devi and his daughter properly. 27. It has also been submitted that the respondent-wife was subjected to torture for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The appellant-husband is 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 9 a man of cunning and desperate nature. The appellant has filed matrimonial divorce suit no.177 of 2013 for getting divorce from his wife, Pushpa Devi with an intention to legalise his second marriage with Sabita Devi. He has solemnized second marriage with Sabita Devi, due to which, the respondent-wife had filed PCR Case No.374 of 2007 against the respondent/appellant herein. The said case was also got compromised by the appellant by giving a false assurance that he will provide and give the entire expense for the marriage of his daughter Manisha Kumari. 28. It has been contended that a compromise made in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not preclude a wife from claiming maintenance under the provision of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the appellant/husband is bound to maintain his wife and unmarried daughter, as per provision contained under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act 1956. 29. It has been further contended that the respondents have successfully proved that they have no source of income and the appellant-husband has solemnized his second marriage and he is a man of means also, hence, the respondents have sufficient ground to live separate from the appellant and claim maintenance from him. 30. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Family Court while taking into consideration the aforesaid factual as well as legal aspect has rightly allowed the application for maintenance under Act, 1956, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 10 Analysis: 31. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment. 32. The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for Adoption and Maintenance has been filed, i.e., by filing an application under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and accordingly, issues have been framed. 33. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. For ready reference, the evidences led on behalf of the parties are being referred as under: 34. The petitioners, the respondents herein have examined the four witnesses in support of their claim as follows:-P.W.1-Santosh Kumar Sah, P.W.2-Sanjay Kumar, P.W.3-Manisha Kumari (respondent no.2 herein) and P.W.4-Pushpa Devi (respondent no.1 herein). 35. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioners, respondents herein have filed some documents also, which have been marked exhibits as follows: - “Ext.1-Certified copy of order dated 16.06.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.14/2005 from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dumka. Ext.2-Certified copy of judgment dated 16.06.2008 from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2005 Ext.3-Order dated 12.04.2022 of the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in A.B.A. No.2876/2010 Identification Mark X-Photo copy of order dated 14.03.2011 in A.B.A. No.2876/2010 Identification Mark X/1 to X/2-Photo copy of order dated 09.02.2022 & 12.04.2022 in First Appeal No.102/19.” 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 11 36. The respondent, appellant herein has also examined the following witnesses in support of his claim, as follows:-D.W.1-Shyam Prasad Sah, D.W.2-Ramesh Goswami, D.W.3-Arbind Kumar Burnwal, D.W.4-Bharti Devi, D.W.5-Om Prakash Gupta (appellant). 37. Apart from the aforesaid, the respondent, appellant herein has also filed some documents which have been marked exhibits as follows:- “Ext.A-Certified copy of joint compromise petition filed in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Crl. Execution Case No.45/2007. Ext.B-Certified copy of order dated 01.07.2015 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. Execution Case No.45/07. Ext.C-Certified copy of the deposition of P.W.2 Bharti Devi in Matrimonial Suit No.177/13 Ext.D-Certified Copy of the joint compromise petition in P.C.R. Case No.374/07 T.R.1464/15 Ext.E-Certified copy of order-sheet dated 01.07.2015 to 21.09.2015 in P.C.R. Case No.374/2007 Ext.F to F/1-Certified copy of P.W.1 Pushpa Devi & P.W.2 Sanjay Kumar in P.C.R. Case No.374/2007. Ext.G-Certified copy of judgment dated 24.01.2017 in P.C.R. 374/2007.” 38. Now, it needs to refer herein the testimony of witnesses of the petitioners (respondents herein) and the respondent (appellant herein) which reads as under: - The P.W.1 Santosh Kumar Sah has deposed in his examination- in-chief that the petitioners (respondent herein) are unable to maintain themselves because they have no source of income and the mother and father of Pushpa Devi had already died. The petitioner no.1-Pushpa Devi has only one brother who has his own liability and hence, he is also not in position to support the petitioners and the life of petitioners has become miserable and they are at the verge of starvation. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 12 On the other hand, the respondent-appellant is an able-bodied person and he leads a life of luxury along with his second wife Sabita Devi and her children. The respondent-appellant runs a cloth shop in Meena Bazar from where he earns Rs.5-7 thousand per day. Apart from it, the respondent has about 10-12 Bighas agricultural land in his native District Giridih from which he earns Rs. 10-12 thousand per month. The respondent is liable to pay Rs.40,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and daughter and further to give Rs.10 lakh for meeting the expenses of his daughter's marriage. Further, in his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that Om Prakash Gupta (husband) had lodged a case against the petitioner/wife brother Sanjay Sah and against him also. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that the Pushpa Devi works in Aaganbari and her daughter is teacher in a private School. Further, he has denied from this suggestion also that the Pushpa Devi has illicit relation with one Ranjan Gupta. The P.W. 2 Sanjay Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he is the only brother of Pushpa Devi. He has further stated that he has his own liability, due to which, he is unable to bear the expense of his sister and niece Manisha Kumari and his sister and niece do not do any work and they have no source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent is an able-bodied person and he is leading a life of luxury with his second wife Sabita Devi and his children and he has a big cloth shop in the Meena Bazar, Yatri Niwas from where he earns Rs. 5-7 thousand per day. The respondent has income of Rs.10 to12 thousand per month from agriculture and further he earns Rs. 2 lakhs in Shravani Mela. The respondent (husband) is liable to pay Rs. 40,000/-per month to 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 13 his wife Pushpa Devi and daughter and further, he is liable to pay Rs.10 lakh towards the marriage expense of his daughter. He has further deposed that neither his sister works in Aagan bari Kendra nor the Manisha Kumari works as Teacher in Private School nor she earns Rs. 15,000/- per month from there. P.W.3, Manisha Kumari (respondent No.2 herein & the daughter of the appellant) has stated that her father (appellant herein) does not provide any expense to her and her mother and they have no source of income nor they do any work and her maternal grand-father and mother had also died and now, they are facing problem in living in the house of her maternal uncle. She had further deposed that her maternal uncle is a farmer and he is unable to incur their expense and she has attained marriageable age but her father does not care about her marriage and he has deserted her. The compromise was obtained by alluring her mother. She had further deposed that her father is a healthy person and he has a cloth shop in Meena Bazar, near Yatri Niwas from there he earns Rs. 5-7 thousand per day. Her father has about 10 Bighas of agricultural land as his ancestral land from where he earns Rs. 10-12 thousand per month. She has further deposed that neither my mother works anywhere nor she work as Teacher in any Private School. She had not signed any compromise petition in Execution Case No.45/07 and hence, the same is not binding upon her. Further, the said compromise was done because they were not getting any maintenance and they were tired and harassed due to continuous litigations. Further, in her cross-examination, this witness has deposed that she has not seen the license of her father's shop but she has seen the shop and 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 14 she has not seen the papers of the land of her father. She had further deposed that her father has solemnized his second marriage. Further, in her cross-examination, this witness has denied from this suggestion that her mother had got compromised the Execution Case No.45/2007 with her husband in the Court of learned Family Judge, Dumka and she had admitted that she has already obtained her permanent alimony and she shall not raise any claim against her husband in future. Further, she has denied from this suggestion also that all the other cases were also compromised by her mother. Further, she has also denied from this suggestion that she earns Rs. 15-20 thousand by teaching in a school. Further, she has denied from this suggestion also that her father is unemployed. P.W.4 Pushpa Devi (respondent no.1 herein & wife of the appellant) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she was married with respondent (appellant herein) on 16.07.1994 as per Hindu Customs and Rituals. In course of time, a daughter was born from the said wedlock whose name is Manisha Kumari. She had further deposed that her relation with her husband was well only for about 2-3 years and thereafter her husband started to torture her for dowry and he used to abuse and assault her, for which, she had filed a P.C.R. Case No.639/99 against her husband and he was found guilty in that case and the conviction of her husband was upheld even from the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi also. She has further deposed that her husband was not providing her food, cloth, and other essential items of daily use, for which, she had filed a case for maintenance, vide Cr. Misc. Case No. 17 of 2001/21 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka and maintenance was allowed to 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 15 her @ Rs. 2000/- per month and her daughter Manisha Kumari @ Rs. 500/- per month. But even thereafter, her husband did not provide the said maintenance properly and he had left them at the stage of starvation and approximately Rs.4 lakh had become due on account of their maintenance and hence, she filed Execution case for recovery of said amount. Thereafter, her husband promised to keep her well. She was at the stage of starvation and hence taking advantage of their helplessness, her husband got compromised the matter and given a false assurance that he shall keep them well in future. But, thereafter her husband started torturing them. She had further deposed that her husband had moved before the High Court for Anticipatory bail and in course of hearing of said Anticipatory bail petition, it was ordered by the High Court in A.B.A. No. 2876/2010 that her husband shall pay Rs. 5000/- per month for their maintenance by the 15th day of every succeeding month. Thereafter, her husband paid the said amount of maintenance to them for a few days @ Rs 5000/- per month but he again stopped to pay the said amount and there was an arrears of Rs.4 lakh of maintenance, for which, a distress warrant was issued against her husband from the Court. Thereafter, her husband again assured to keep her and her daughter well and pay Rs. 1 lakh towards their immediate expense and thereby he got the said cases compromised by enticing her. But, after one month, her husband again started to torture and misbehave with her. She had further deposed that there was no such talk of divorce in the said compromise and no divorce was obtained and her husband had got compromised the case fraudulently by making false assurance that he will incur the entire expense of the marriage of Manisha Kumari. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 16 This witness has further deposed that her mother and father had already died and the economic condition of her parental house is not good and her brother is a farmer and he has his own liability also and hence he is not in position to incur their expenses and they have no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and Manisha Kumari. She had further deposed that her husband is an able-bodied person, having good status and he has a cloth shop in the Meena Bazar from where he earns Rs.7000/-per day and her husband has about 10 Bighas agricultural land from where he earns Rs. 2 lakh per year. She had further stated that her husband has a big house in the Giridih and he earns Rs. 10-12 thousand per month as rent. She had further deposed that her husband is not providing them maintenance nor he is ready to keep them and he is leading a life of luxury with his second wife and her children. In cross-examination, she had further deposed that she is an illiterate and she doesn’t work in the Aaganbari and she further deposed that it is wrong to say that her daughter works as Teacher in Private School and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month from there. She had stated that she had seen the shop of her husband which is situated in the Meena Bazar but she can't say its ward number and she has not seen the license of her husband's shop. Further, she has denied from this suggestion that her husband used to sell flower. Further, she has denied the suggestion that she has already obtained permanent alimony from her husband and she had assured to not to raise any claim for her maintenance against her husband in future. 39. Now, it requires to refer herein the testimonies of the respondent (appellant herein) which reads as under:- 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 17 DW.1, Shyam Prasad Sah has deposed in his examination-in-chief that respondent (appellant herein) is a poor, unemployed and peaceful person whereas the Pushpa Devi is a cruel and quarrelsome lady. Respondent used to sell garland in the temple and market but presently he is sitting idle due to his illness. He had deposed that respondent-wife had got compromised the Execution Case No. 45/2007 and P.C.R. Case No. 374/2007 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Dumka after taking Rs.3,50,000/- and she had written in her compromise petition that she will not claim any maintenance from her husband in future. he had further deposed that respondent’s wife Pushpa Devi works as Assistant in Aaganbari Kendra and earns Rs. 3000/-per month whereas the Manisha Kumari is a teacher in the Green Mount School, Dumka and earns Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has deposed that the house of Om Prakash Gupta is in the Harizan Colony, Kanibag and his ancestral house is in the Giridih. He has no knowledge about the property of the Om Prakash Gupta. This witness has further admitted in para 19 of his cross-examination that – "मैं पु˃ा या मनीषा से ʩİिगत तौर पर कभी नहीŃ ममला हŃ, के वल दूर से देखा हŃ।" He has further said that he was also present in Dumka at the time of compromise on 01.07.2015 and the money was given at that time. He doesn’t know as to whether the Om Prakash Gupta has filed any case of divorce or not? D.W. 2, Ramesh Goswami has said that there was dispute between Pushpa Devi and Om Prakash Gupta which was compromised on 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 18 01.07.2015. The Pushpa Devi had written in compromise that she will not claim any maintenance for herself and her daughter against the Om Prakash Gupta in future. The Pushpa Devi works in Raikinari Aaganbari Kendra whereas the Manisha Kumari works as a teacher in the Green Mount School. Further, in his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he has gone to the village Raikinari on one or two occasions by motorcycle but he doesn't know about its panchayat and he has not seen the Green Mount School. He further deposed that her affidavit was got prepared by the Om Prakash Gupta and he has signed it but he did not read it. D.W. 3 Arbind Kumar Barnwal has deposed in his examination-in- chief that the petitioner Pushpa Devi works as Assistant in Aaganbari Kendra, Raikinari and gets Rs. 3000/- per month whereas the petitioner Manisha Kumari works as Teacher in Green Mount School and earms Rs. 15,000/- per month. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has said that he has not ever gone to the Raikinari village. The Pushpa Devi had come to her shop for purchasing cloth and my cloth shop is situated in Karnibag. He has further said that Om Prakash Gupta does the work of Ferry. D.W. 4 Bharti Devi is the respondent's sister. She has deposed that her Bhabhi Pushpa Devi was misbehaving with them and she used to humiliate them. The Pushpa Devi used to call strangers in their house and remain with them in a room by bolting it from inside. The Pushpa Devi used to lead a life of adultery and wander with stranger persons. The Pushpa Devi works as Assistant in Aaganbari, Raikinari and gets Rs. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 19 3000/- per month whereas the Manisha Kumari works as Teacher in the Green Mount School and earns Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, in her cross-examination this witness has said that her brother had filed a case for divorce which was dismissed. She had stated that the Om Prakash Gupta has his own house in Giridih. D.W. 5 Om Prakash Gupta (the appellant herein) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that his wife Pushpa Devi is a characterless female and she used to misbehave with them. She used to confine herself in a room of his house along with some stranger persons and on raising protest, she used to threaten them to set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene oil and thereby implicate us in a false case. There were several cases in between them in the Dumka Court and his wife had got compromised all the cases after taking Rs. 3, 50,000/- from him by way of draft and executing a joint compromise petition wherein it was undertaken by her that she will not claim any maintenance from him in future either for herself or her daughter. The said compromise was done on 01.07.2015 and the Execution Case No.45/2007 and PCR. Case No. 374/07 were disposed off on the basis of said compromise. He had further deposed that his wife Pushpa Devi works as Assistant in Aaganbari Kendra, Raikinari and gets Rs.3000/-per month whereas the Manisha Kumari is a teacher in the Green Mount School, Dumka and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. He had deposed that he has become too old and he remain frequently ill and the expense of his treatment is incurred by his brother and sister. Further, in his cross-examination this witness has deposed that he had filed a case of divorce from Pushpa Devi which was dismissed in the 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 20 year of 2018 and he had filed an appeal against the said dismissal order before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi which was subsequently withdrawn by him. He further deposed that he didn't file any case against the adultery of his wife. He had filed a petition for Anticipatory Bail in connection with PCR Case No.374/07 before the High Court and it was ordered that he will pay Rs. 5000/- per month to his wife towards maintenance. Further, he has denied from this suggestion that he has solemnized his second marriage during the life time of his first wife. Further, in his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he had given Rs.1,00,000/- in PCR Case No.374/2007 and Rs.01 lakh in the case No.45/2007 and rest amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the Divorce Case No.177/2013. 40. Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties wherein the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidences have not properly been appreciated and considered by the learned family Court and as such, the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 41. While on the other hand, argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the judgment has well been considered as such, order/judgment impugned requires no interference. 42. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity, needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 21 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 22 “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 43. Thus, a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Further “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 44. The learned counsel for the appellant emphatically contended that the compromise between the respondent no.1-Pushpa Devi and appellant in Crl. Execution Case No.45/07 and PCR Case No.374/07 precludes the respondents from claiming maintenance against the appellant under Section 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. 45. In the aforesaid context it would be apt to discuss herein the core of Section 18 and 20 of the Act 1956. For ready reference the same are being quoted as under: 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 23 “18. Maintenance of wife.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance,— (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her; (b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) 14[* * *] (d) if he has any other wife living; (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; (g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.” 20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor. (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or daughter who is unmarried extends insofar as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property. Explanation.—In this section “parent” includes a childless stepmother. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 24 46. According to Section 18(1) of the Act 1956, a Hindu wife is entitled to the maintenance from her husband during her lifetime. She is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband so long as she is chaste subject to the conditions laid down in Section 18(2) of the said Act. Such an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife arises irrespective of the fact whether he has or has no property, as it is considered an imperative duty and a solemn obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “8.---- According to the Law of the Land with regard to maintenance, there is an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife which does not arise by reason of any contract — express or implied — but out of jural relationship of husband and wife consequent to the performance of marriage. Such an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife arises irrespective of the fact whether he has or has no property, as it is considered an imperative duty and a solemn obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. The husband cannot be heard saying that he is unable to maintain due to financial constraints so long as he is capable of earning. Similarly, it is obligatory on the part of a son to maintain his aged father and mother by reason of personal obligation. Under the old Hindu law, this obligation was imposed on the son alone, but now the present-day Hindu law extends this obligation both on sons and daughters. In this connection, it is relevant to point out that according to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife is entitled to the maintenance from her husband during her lifetime. She is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband so long as she is chaste subject to the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act.---" 47. Thus, a Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, minor sons, unmarried daughters and aged or infirm parents. The obligation to 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 25 maintain them is personal, legal and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties. 48. The expression ‘is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property’ is more in the nature of a proviso to the first part of Section 20(3) which imposes in most unequivocal terms an obligation on the father or the mother regarding their unmarried daughter or infirm or aged parents. Further it requires to refer herein that right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, it is justified to grant maintenance to the daughter even after her attaining majority but till her marriage. 49. It requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma, (2014) 14 SCC 452 has categorically observed that Section 125 CrPC is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife, who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125 CrPC is tentative and is subject to final determination of rights in a civil court. Hence, suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is maintainable despite compromise in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment, are being quoted as under: “10. Section 125 CrPC is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of the parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are governed by the provisions of CrPC and the order made under Section 125 CrPC is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a civil court. 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 26 11. Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a court of law and such an agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. The proceeding under Section 125 CrPC is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 CrPC by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.” 50. Now re-adverting to the factual aspect of the case. It is evident from the order impugned that the petitioner (the wife) has filed the certified copy of the judgement dated 11.12.2018 passed in Matrimonial Suit (Divorce) No.177/2013 (Ext. 3) which suggests that the said case was dismissed on contest. Further, amount was given by the respondent, appellant herein to his wife Pushpa Devi, in connection with the Execution Case No. 45/07 which was instituted for the recovery of the arrears amount of maintenance granted in favour of the wife (respondent herein), in the Maintenance Case. 51. Furthermore, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Family Court found from the certified copy of compromise petition in P.C.R. Case No. 374/07 (Ext-D) that the petitioner No.2 (herein respondent no.2) Manisha Kumari had not participated in the said compromise nor the said compromise bears the signature of Manisha Kumari and it has been done only between the petitioner Pushpa Devi and the appellant Om Prakash Gupta, and other persons. 52. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that respondent No.2 Manisha Kumari was neither party of the said case nor she had entered into any compromise with her father in the said case, the said compromise can't be binding upon the petitioner No.2. The Pushpa Devi could not waive the right legally available to the respondent No. 2, Manisha Kumari against 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 27 her father by entering into the said compromise and hence any condition of this compromise can't bind the respondent No.2. 53. Further the learned Family Court has specifically found that compromise petition (Ext-D) contains recitals about the receiving of some money in Execution Case No. 45/2007 and P.C.R. Case No. 374/07 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code but the compromise entered into between the parties in a proceeding of execution for realization of maintenance amount, awarded to a wife in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 54. Thus, there is no dispute on this point that the compromise was entered between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent in an Execution proceeding which was instituted for realization of the maintenance amount granted to the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C and thus, it is considered view of this Court that the said compromise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a respondents/wife and daughter under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 55. Further, from perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that all the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of wife, respondent herein, being the P.W.1 Santosh Kumar Sah, P.W. 2 Sanjay Kumar, P.W. 3 Manisha Kumari (respondent no.2 herein) and P.W. 4 Pushpa Devi respondent no.1 himself have remained quite consistent on this point during their entire examination that the appellant was not maintaining his wife and daughter (respondents herein) properly. 56. The aforesaid witnesses have deposed very specifically that the petitioners (respondents herein) do not do any work nor they have any source of income and they are totally dependent on appellant/respondent for their 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 28 maintenance. All the aforesaid witnesses have been cross-examined on behalf of appellant/respondent at length but even then, the appellant/respondent has not been able to bring any such discrepancy on record which can be said to be contrary or fatal for the case of respondent wife and daughter and thus, there is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the oral testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. 57. The learned Family Court, after due appreciation of the all the evidences available on record as well as taking into consideration the settled legal exposition has observed, which reads as under: “As the plea of petitioners' income was taken by the respondent, it was incumbent upon nim to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence in this regard but no document has been brought on record by the respondent to substantiate his said claim and all the respondent's witnesses, being the D.W.1 Shyam Prasad Sah, D.W. 2 Ramesh Goswami, D.W. 3 Arbind Kumar and D.W 4 Bharti Devi have admitted in their cross-examination that they have not gone to the village Raikinari in the parental house of the petitioner nor they have seen the Green Mount School and it appears that these witnesses have no specific knowledge about the alleged working of petitioners and they are simply tutted witnesses whose oral testimony can't be safely relied upon on the aforesaid point. As regards the oral testimony of D.W. 5 Om Prakash Gupta is concerned, he has not been able to even disclose the name of the Principal of the said School nor he has filed any paper/certificate, issued from the Principal of said School or Aaganbari Kendra for showing that the petitioners work in the said institution and it appears that the respondent has taken the plea of petitioners' in-come without any cogent evidence only for the purpose of saving his skin from his liability towards the petitioners. Thus, keeping in view the status of respondent and his age as well as the profession also, this Court finds that even if the oral testimony of respondent's wit-nesses is taken into consideration that the respondent Om Prakash Gupta used to sell flower and garland and he does the work of ferry, it can be safely inferred that the monthly income of respondent would not be less than Rs. 20,000/- per month. As per his own admission, the respondent has no other liability except to maintain himself and his wife and daughter. Thus, I find that the petitioner No.1 is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent @Rs. 4000/- per month whereas the petitioner No.2 is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent @ Rs. 3000/- per month till her marriage. Further, in view of di-rection given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vrs Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the maintenance should be granted from the date of petition and thus I find that the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the respondent at the aforesaid rate from the date of petition being 06.04.2019.” 2026:JHHC:3552-DB 29 58. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that since the learned Family Court, after due appreciation of all the evidences laid by both the parties and further taking into settled legal exposition rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the compromise in the cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, has allowed the suit in favour of the wife and daughter (respondents herein), therefore, the said finding requires no interference by this Court. 59. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 60. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 61. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 10.02.2026 Rohit/A.F.R.