BIJALI BAI BHATARI Vs. BALLU RAM JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Misc. Criminal Case No. 350/2009 dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that on 28.5.2009, the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the non- applicant. Case of the applicant is that her marriage was solemnized with the non-applicant in November, 2008 and immediately thereafter, she was being subjected to cruelty and deprived of even food by him. She has further alleged that on account of cruel behaviour of the non-applicant, a village meeting was called but even then he did not improve his attitude. According to her, the non-applicant had deserted her without there being sufficient reason and he is not even making any arrangement for maintenance. She has alleged that monthly income of the non-applicant comes to Rs.10,000/- as he is working in a kiln and therefore, she is entitled to get the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-. In support of her contention, the applicant has examined herself, Munsif and Pannalal. In her statement, the applicant has deposed that in marriage, certain photographs were also taken which are marked as Annexures P-1 to P-5. From the record, it is revealed that the non-applicant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights duly supported by affidavits vide Annexures P-6 and P-7. This application was duly replied by the applicant herein vide Annexure P-8. She has also filed the order sheets of Court below showing the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She has further alleged that her marriage was solemnized in village Medesara as per the social customs prevailing there by exchanging garlands. Munsif has supported the case of the applicant including her marriage with the non-applicant. He has stated that the applicant who is working in a kiln earns Rs.200/- per day. Pannalal - another witness has stated that daily income of the non-applicant comes to Rs.60/-, 70/- or 80/- whereas the applicant is not doing anything. The photographs filed by the applicant are not disputed by the non-applicant and it appears that their marriage was solemnized by applying vermilion on hair parting of the applicant.

(3.) NOW, the next question to be considered by this Court is as to the quantum of maintenance to be granted to the applicant. It has come in the evidence that the non- applicant is working as a labourer in a kiln and therefore, it can be presumed that his daily income must be between Rs.100/- and 150/- and if that is calculated month wise, it comes to Rs.3000/- to 4,500/-. Thus, looking to the present price hike of the essential commodities, keeping in view the income of the non-applicant and also living standard of the parties, the applicant is entitled to get a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, it is held that the non-applicant shall pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance from the date of this order. This apart, she would also be entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.