AKHTAR S O SRI SEEDA Vs. FAMILY JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C.)read with Section 19 (4) of the Family Court's Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 03. 03. 2005 passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee in case no. 116 of 2004 Smt. Ruksana and another vs. Mohd. Akhatar whereby the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/-per month for the maintenance of his wife (respondent no. 2)and Rs. 300/- per month for the maintenance of his daughter (respondent no. 3), by 10th of each month from the date of order i. e. from 03. 03. 2005.

(2.) HEARD Sri M. S. Bisht, holding brief of Sri Gopal Narayan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Harish Pujari, learned addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Sri Pramod Tewari, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2

(3.) FROM perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent no. 2-wife Smt. Ruksana filed a petition u/s 125 Cr. P. C. for awarding maintenance against the revisionist-husband before the Trial Court, with the averments that marriage in between her and the revisionist was solemnized in the month of May 1984 according to the Muslim rituals. Her husband was not satisfied with the dowry, therefore she was subjected to physical cruelty and mental torture to fetch more dowry. Three children were born out of the wedlock. In the week end of the month of january 2004, she alongwith her daughter Km. Sameena were ousted by the revisionist in their wearing clothes. Thereafter the revisionist did not take care of them and did not pay maintenance for them. The petitioner-respondent no. 2 had no source of income, while the revisionist owns 40 Bighas of agricultural land by which he earns Rs. 30,000/- per month. Besides it, he runs a dairy, he is co-sharer in a brick factory, he owns a truck and in all he has the monthly income of Rs. 60,000/- from all sources. The revisionist-husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. Although he admitted the marriage, but he declined the allegation of torturing and cruelty as alleged by the wife-respondent. It was submitted that his monthly income has been shown in exaggeration. The parties have led their oral and documentary evidence in order to prove their version. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 03. 03. 2005 allowed the application of the wife-respondent no. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife (respondent no. 2) and Rs. 300/- per month for the maintenance of his daughter (respondent no. 3), by 10th of each month from the date of order i. e. from 03. 03. 2005.