SAYED FAKIRUDDIN Vs. HENA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sushanta Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) There is no dispute that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party. The petitioner Sayed Fakiruddin has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2014 of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.48 of 2013 in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month to the opposite party towards maintenance under section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005, inter alia, with other reliefs. The judgment passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment and order dated 24.12015 in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2014, both the appeals were filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by a way of common judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an Auto rickshaw driver and the amount of maintenance which was fixed is on the higher side and there was no proper assessment of the income of the petitioner by both the Courts below and the order of maintenance has been passed in a mechanical manner. He further contended that no proper opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to adduce evidence regarding his income.