PRADEEP KUMAR SAINI Vs. SEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota whereby the learned Judge has granted a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1, Smt.. Seema, and Rs. 500 per month to the respondent No. 2, Rani @ Bittu.

(2.) Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Smt.. Seema is staying away from the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should have been given to the petitioner. Secondly, Smt. Seema is earning sufficient amount to be able to look after herself and the child. Therefore, they are disentitled from claiming any maintenance from him. Thirdly without assigning any reason, the learned Judge has directed that the maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application namely, from 26.6.2004, instead of from the date of the order.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that in her statement, Smt. Seema has clearly stated that she was not only subjected to dowry demands, but was also subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner. Therefore, she had no other option, but to leave him and to reside with her parents, Thus, she has sufficient cause for leaving the matrimonial home. Hence, the benefit of Section 125{4) Cr.P.C. cannot be given to the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner has not produced an iota of evidence to buttress his contention that Smt. Seema is earning sufficient amount to be able to look after herself arid the child. Thirdly, the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for directing that the maintenance amount be paid from the date of filing of the application. Lastly, in fact, the learned Judge need not give any special reason for making the maintenance payable from the date of filing of the application. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shall Kumari Devi and Anr v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @Kishun B. Pathak. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.