MANJUNATH Vs. MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.03.2013 passed in Crl. Misc. 610/2011 which is impugned at Annexure -E to the petition. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. In view of certain marital discord between the parties, they have been residing separately. It is in that context, the respondent has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is registered as Crl. Misc. 610/2011 seeking maintenance. During the pendency of the petition, an application was filed seeking for interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/ - per month. The petitioner herein had objected to the same. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has passed the interim order directing the petitioner herein to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/ - per month. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court.

(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner herein is performing pooja in the Temple and as such, he does not have sufficient income to pay the said maintenance which has been ordered. It is also contended that the son of the parties is aged about 22 years and therefore can in any event look after the respondent and as such, the maintenance as ordered is not sustainable. In the light of the contentions, a perusal of the order passed by the Court below would indicate that the Court below having taken note of the said aspect has also relied on the copy of the document relating to the immovable property standing in the name of the petitioner herein. Hence, keeping these aspects in view and also taking note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties and the respondent herein being the wife is entitled to the maintenance, the Court below has ordered maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - per month. In my opinion, the same in any event, cannot be considered either to be exorbitant or exaggerated. Further, the contention that the son can earn and maintain the respondent is not justified. Therefore, I see no merits in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.