OM PRAKASH Vs. SMT. MANJU & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500.00 per month to the respondent-wife No.1 and Rs. 750.00 per month each to the respondent-children Nos.2 and 3 from 24.08.2007 till 31.05.2010. The learned Judge has also directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 2,000.00 per month to the respondent-wife No.1 and Rs. 1,000.00 per month each to respondent-children Nos.2 and 3 from 31.05.2010 onwards.

(2.) Mr. Vippin Makkad, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has vehemently contended that the respondent-wife No.1 is earning Rs. 8,000.00 to Rs. 10,000.00 per month by stitching cloths. Secondly, the petitioner husband does not earn more than Rs. 2,200.00 per month. Therefore, he is not in a position to bear a total maintenance of Rs. 4,000.00 per month. Thirdly, the respondent-wife No.1 is staying away from the petitioner husband without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, the benefit of Sec. 125(4) Crimial P.C. should have been given to him.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Anuj Sahlot, the learned counsel for the respondents, has strenuously contended that the petitioner-husband has not submitted any evidence to show that the respondent-wife No.1 is earning Rs. 8,000.00 to Rs. 10,000.00 per month by stitching cloths. Secondly, according to the petitioner-husband himself, he had loaned Rs. 50,000.00 to his father-in-law, yet he claims that he is merely earning Rs. 2,200.00 per month. Since he is in the business of wholesale medicines, his claim that he is earning merely Rs. 2,200.00 per month is highly fallacious. Lastly, according to the respondent-wife No.1, she was constantly submitted to mental and physical cruelty. Therefore, she has a valid reason for staying away from the petitioner-husband. Therefore, the benefit of Sec. 125(4) Crimial P.C. cannot be given to the petitioner-husband.