MUKESH ALIAS MUBARIK SHEIKH Vs. NEELOPHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri A. H. Khan, learned counsel with Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for applicant. Shri S. A. Mev, counsel for Opponent No. 1. Shri S. H. Sen, Dy. G. A. for State. The evidence has been examined. This revision petition has been admitted only on the point of quantum of alimony. Shri Khan, submitted that the applicant is saddled with responsibility of maintaining his second wife and the children begotten from her. He pointed that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 1,173/- per month as muster clerk in Municipal Corporation, Indore. It is his argument that in view of this meagre amount of income, it is not possible for applicant to pay alimony of Rs. 500/- to opponent No. 1. At this juncture Shri Khan invited attention of this court to the observations made by the trial Court in respect of income of the applicant.

(2.) SHRI S. A. Mev, learned counsel appearing for opponent No. 1 pointed that it has come in the evidence of petitioner himself that his house was constructed before marriage. He further pointed that it has come in the evidence of Mohan, the witness examined by the petitioner that Mohan was the tenant in the house of petitioner Mukesh and he was paying rental of Rs. 400/- per month. He further pointed that the evidence of Mohan also shows that another tenement was also given on rent to other tenant. It is the argument of Shri Mev that thus, the petitioner is having income more than Rs. 1,500/- per month. Shri Mev further argued that the petitioner is having the luxury of marrying second wife. Therefore, he cannot shirk out the responsibility of maintaining his first wife-opponent No. 1 Neelophar. It is his argument that the alimony of Rs. 500/- which has been granted in favour of opponent No. 1 is very much correct, proper and legal and there is no need of modifying or reducing it. Shri S. H. Sen, Dy. G. A. for the State submitted that appropriate order be passed keeping in view the evidence on record.

(3.) I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of opponent No. 1 by Shri Mev. After examining the evidence on record, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is getting income more than Rs. 1,500/- per month. The petitioner has remarried. The petitioner may get children from the wedlock with his second wife; but that is no ground for reducing the alimony which opponent No. 2 his first wife is entitled to receive under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.