ALTAF AHMED Vs. RUBINA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner husband assailing the order of the learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which, he has been directed to pay Rs. 3000.00 per month to the respondent-wife and also the order of the learned appellate court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 16/7/2010 by which, appeal submitted by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is hardly earning Rs. 2500.00 per month and he cannot be forced to pay Rs. 3000.00 per month. Learned courts below have failed to appreciate that petitioner was willing to keep the wife but she herself does not want to stay with him. She in her statement before the court in the proceedings of Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights stated that she is ready to withdraw all the cases pending in the court provided, if the petitioner divorced her and further she does not want to live with him. Respondent therefore disentitled herself to any maintenance.

(3.) Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner produced before the court certain documents showing that he was a member of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and that he has hardly any income to pay Rs. 3000.00 per month to the wife. Impugned orders be therefore quashed and set-aside.