SATISH RANGARI Vs. SARITA RANGARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed assailing the order dated 20.11.2015. Vide the said order, the court below i.e. 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No.351 of 2014 initiated at the behest of the respondent-wife under Section 125 CrPC has allowed the said application and ordered for payment of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to be paid by the applicantHusband to respondent-Wife.

(2.) Criminal Revision No.1144 of 2015 has been filed by the Husband on the ground that granting of maintenance to the respondent is bad in law and needs to be set aside/quashed whereas, Criminal Revision No.8 of 2016 has been filed by the wife seeking for modification of the award by enhancing the award amount.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant-Husband submits that the court below has erred inasmuch as in not appreciating the evidence which have come on record. According to him, the evidence which have come on record clearly shows that there was no justified or plausible reasons for the wife to leave the matrimonial home and that she has in a very short span of marriage has left the matrimonial home voluntarily for which the applicant cannot be blamed and therefore, she was not entitled for grant of maintenance. He also challenges the order on the ground that the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is also exorbitant and is on higher side and the same is beyond his paying capacity. It was also contended that the court below has committed an error of law in rejecting the two applications which were filed by him under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking for producing bank account statement of the wife and another application which were moved for calling upon the Principal and staff of the School where the wife is alleged to have been working as Computer Operator. According to him, rejection of both the applications are detrimental to the interest of the husband and for which also the amount awarded deserves to be set aside/quashed.