RAJ KUMAR BHARADWAJ Vs. SMT. KARUNA BHARADWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been preferred by the Applicant assailing the order dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Durg in Misc. Criminal Case No. 160 of 2005.

(2.) Vide impugned order dated 30.8.2006, the Court below in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC has allowed the application and ordered the Applicant for payment of Rs.1500/- to Non-applicant No.1 (wife of the Applicant) and Rs.500/- to Non-applicant No.2 (son of the Applicant born from Non-applicant No.1) as monthly maintenance.

(3.) Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the Court below has committed an error in not properly appreciating the evidence which have come on record. He further submits that it is a case where the Non-applicant No.1 in the admitted facts of the case itself would not be entitled for payment as maintenance. It was assailed that Non-applicant No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any cogent and strong reason and in the absence of any cogent and strong reason the Court below could not have allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC.