SHAUKAT Vs. MOBINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.3.1995 passed by the Family Judge, Meerut, in Maintenance Application No. 344/1993 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. By that order the learned Judge allowed maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 200/- per month to daughter of the petitioner. Against that order the opposite party Shaukat, against whom the order was passed has preferred this Revision. The learned Counsel has submitted that the learned Judge erred in law in ignoring the contradiction appearing in the statement of wife of the revisionist and without applying the mind allowed the maintenance application. It has also been submitted that the learned Judge did not consider the attending facts and circumstances, including income of the revisionist and that the amount of maintenance is excessive.

(2.) The opposite party i.e. wife of the revisionist filed an application for maintenance on the ground that the revisionist driven out after assaulting her for which she alongwith her daughter left the house of her husband and went to her parents house. Father of the opposite party when contacted, the revisionist asked for Rs. 20,000/ - and when he failed to pay the amount the revisionist refused to take her to his house. It has been stated that she is an illiterate lady and staying in the house of her parents who are poor and as such she has become burden to them. On the other hand the revisionist is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month after doing some manufacturing job of iron materials. She claimed Rs. 500/- for herself and Rs. 300/- for her daughter.

(3.) The revisionist filed a written statement denying all the allegation, stated inter alia, that the opposite party always insisted upon him to stay with her parents, which he did not agree. He denied the demand of dowery or that she was driven away from the house after assaulting her. When contacted for her return the members of her parents family refused to send her to his house. The opposite party used to do tailoring shop for which she could earn her livelihood. She is also able to maintain her daughter. He has further stated that he is un-employed and earning somehow by pulling rickshaw. She is not entitled to any maintenance nor he has capacity to pay any maintenance.