BALJEET Vs. MENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, Smt.Menka (respondent No.1-wife) and Suman (respondent No.2), minor daughter of petitioner husband Baljeet son of Rameshwar, have filed the petition for maintenance against him (petitioner), invoking the provisions of section 125 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that after solemnization of marriage in the year 1998, the parties resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child, namely, Suman (now aged 8 years), was born out of their wedlock. The parents of the wife were stated to have spent more than Rs. 4 lacs on her marriage beyond their capacity and gave sufficient dowry articles, but her husband and his family members were not satisfied. It was claimed that soon after the marriage, they started taunting her and demanded more dowry articles and maruti car. Ultimately, she along with minor female child was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband and his family members. According to the wife, she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas her husband is owner of 7 acres of agricultural land. He is able bodied person and is earning Rs. 2 lacs per annum from dairy business. In the background of these allegations, the respondent-wife sought the maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month for herself and Rs. 3000/- p.m. for her minor girl, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- from the petitioner.

(2.) Sequelly, the petitioner-husband refuted the claim of respondent-wife and filed the reply, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and her locus standi. The husband claimed that she herself has started quarreling with him and his family members on petty matters and left her matrimonial home without his permission. She was stated to have filed a complaint u/ss 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC to humiliate the petitioner husband and his family members on false grounds. The husband has also levelled the allegations of 2nd marriage against his wife (which remained unsubstantiated). He has denied his source of income & ownership of land and other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

(3.) Likewise, the District Judge, Family Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, partly accepted the petition and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to respondent-wife and Rs. 1500/- p.m. to his minor daughter, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 8.4.2013