(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the grant of maintenance of Rs. 300/ - per month to the wife on her application under section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has never objected to keep her and it is the opposite party only who has been living with her parents of her own accord. The other submission of the learned counsel is that the amount of maintenance claimed per month is too much and it should be reduced.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the reconciliation proceeding before the Family Court failed because the petitioner has taken another ground.
(3.) NO doubt the petitioner still offers to maintain the opposite party but the opposite party has apprehension because of the second marriage of the petitioner. It is a fact that a case under section 494 I.P.C. filed by the opposite party against the petitioner failed because of the lack of evidence. Even otherwise petitioner has not taken any legal steps for restitution of conjugal rights with the opposite party. No such petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed. In view of this it cannot be said that the petitioner has taken any steps to maintain the opposite party. It is also a fact that the petitioner has not paid a single pie to opposite party for her maintenance. These circumstances go to show nothing but the neglect of the petitioner to maintain his legally wedded life. Regarding the quantum of amount, the submission of opposite party was that the petitioner has 5 acres of land and his annual income from the land is Rs. 20,000/ - per year. That apart, his annual income is Rs. 10,000/ - also from the Ran gali Project where he is working. A sum of Rs: 500/ - was claimed by the opposite party but the Family Court fixed only an amount of Rs. 300/per month which is hardly a just amount for the maintenance of the opposite party.