ZAHEDA BEGUM Vs. RAHEEMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court questioning the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Prl. Judge Family Court Raichur in Criminal Misc. No. 143/2011 vide its Judgment dated: 19 -10 -2012.

(2.) THE petitioners have filed a petition U/Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming Rs. 8,000/ - per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/ - each to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 against the respondent. There is no dispute between the parties that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent herein taken place on 10 -01 -2012 at Koppal and they were blessed with four children. The petitioner contended before the trial Court that respondent has neglected and refused to maintain her and she has been residing separately alongwith her children and the respondent has not made any arrangements for their maintenance. The respondent has made appearance before the trial Court contested the petition by saying that the children petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 before the trial Court have been in his care and custody and he has got aged old parents to look after them also. Therefore he is not in a position to pay such maintenance to her.

(3.) EVEN after re -evaluating the materials on record, it is clear that P.W. 1 in her evidence, though she has stated that respondent is an Engineer who had been to Saudi Arabian countries and earned lot of money and has got lot of immovable properties and he is running private cars etc. But when those factual aspects have been denied by the respondent, those facts ought to have been proved by means of at -least preponderance of probabilities. Except P.W. 1 examining herself producing some documents which are not pertaining to the income of the respondent, in my opinion no inference can be drawn by the Court with regard to the income of the respondent. Therefore it goes without saying that the Court has to award the minimum requirement of a person to live in the society, hence the Court has awarded Rs. 3,000/ - per month, in my opinion it cannot be said that it is a meager amount or exorbitant amount. If at all the petitioner has any documentary materials to show the income of the respondent, then she can definitely approach the Court at any point of time in future U/Sec. 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. As on the date of order of the trial Court the materials placed before the trial Court, and that no materials are placed before this Court it goes without saying that the petitioner has not made any ground for enhancement of the maintenance. On the other hand, the surrounding circumstances that is to say that the respondent has to maintain himself, four children, his parents etc. that also to be taken into consideration in awarding maintenance in favour of the petitioner. Therefore looking from any angle, the order of the trial Court is not perverse or capricious, which requires interference by this Court.