VINEY KUMAR Vs. PINKI GUPTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition lays challenge to the order dated 07.03.2013, passed by the District Judge (Family Court), Ambala, granting maintenance allowance to respondent -Pinki Gupta @ Rs. 3,000/ - per month and Rs. 1,500/ - per month to respondent -Drishti, minor daughter of the petitioner. Pinki Gupta for herself and being the natural guardian of minor Drishti, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance allowance from the petitioner. The Family Court, on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced in support thereto, held the petitioner liable to pay maintenance allowance as detailed hereinabove.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is not doing any work and is pursing his M.B.A. Course, he is not liable to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents.

(3.) INDISPUTABLY , Pinki Gupta respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and minor Drishti was born out of the wedlock of the parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents have any source of income to provide for their maintenance. The petitioner being the husband and father has a legal obligation to maintain his family. He cannot escape his liability on the pretext that he is not working and pursuing his M.B.A. course. As the petitioner is allegedly doing M.B.A. Course, it shows that he is a qualified person. The petitioner is bound to work and earn livelihood for his family. The prices of daily necessities of life are skyrocketing. The amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents cannot be termed as unreasonable. The order passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any error much less illegality as would call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.