KRISHNA MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the complainant of Misc. Case No. 280 of 2000 (346 of 2006) is aggrieved by and has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.1.2007, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, by which maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/ - per month has been allowed to the O.P. No. 2, the complainant -wife alongwith arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/ - from the date of filing of the present Misc. Case, i.e., 18.12.2000 without considering the economic status of the petitioner.

(2.) THE complainant, Lalti Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, had filed the aforesaid petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming payment of maintenance to her and her minor child. It was said that O.P. No. 2 was married with the petitioner on 3rd May, 1993 and out of the wedlock a male child was born and thereafter due to alleged non fulfillment of the demand of a motorcycle and golden chain made by the petitioner some altercation took place and on 20.12.1997 the petitioner allegedly abused and assaulted the complainant and in connivance with the family members tried his best to kill her but she managed to make a providential escape. Thereafter the petitioner and his family members further tortured her in various ways and at last the complainant was forced to leave the marital home to save herself and the child and she has been living with her father ever since. It has also been alleged that thereafter the petitioner solemnized a second marriage with another girl and started neglecting the complainant and the child completely and did not disburse any amount for them either from his wages or from the income from the agricultural property. It was also asserted that the complainant -wife had no independent sources or means of income to maintain herself and her child and as such sought maintenance of Rs. 1000/ - for self and Rs. 1000/ - for child.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in his deposition in court he had specifically and in clear terms stated that he was not employed with any Company and on the contrary was working as a labourer earning Rs. 70/ - per day as his remuneration and that he had only 10 dhoors of land and that he could manage an amount of Rs. 300/ - per month towards maintenance. He also categorically stated before the court that he was ready to provide proper education to the child but denied the factum of his second marriage. On this premise the assessment of the court was erroneous and disproportionate to the income of the petitioner who was not in a position to pay the arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/ - and that he was ready to pay Rs. 400 -500/ - per month and without considering this aspect or the status of the income of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate had fixed maintenance of Rs. 2000/ - which was excessive in nature.