AFTAB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The present application has been filed against the order dated 21.07.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 60(M) of 2006 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, who was his wife, and Rs. 3,000/- per month to his daughter, from the date of the application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after marriage a daughter was born out of the wedlock but then the opposite party no. 2 did not live in the matrimonial home peacefully and herself deserted the husband. It was further submitted that the petitioner has thereafter also divorced her. Learned counsel submitted that the amount fixed by the Court below suffers from legal as well as factual infirmities. On facts, learned counsel submitted that without there being any evidence before the Court about the quantum of income of the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- which has been fixed to be paid by him is exorbitant. It was further submitted that the petitioner has superannuated from service in the year 2013 and till date has not been given his pensionary benefits and, thus, he himself is unable to live a decent life. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite party no. 2 cannot suo motu act as a guardian of the daughter and, thus, the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance to the daughter without she being an applicant, is unsustainable. It was submitted that the application itself would disclose that it has not been filed on behalf of the daughter and even in the entire order sheet, there is no discussion with regard to any claim or the requirement of the daughter but still at the end, maintenance has been awarded, both to the opposite party no. 2 as well as the daughter.