AMNA KHATOON Vs. GAFUR ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the claim of the petitioner Amna Khatoon for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/ - per month from the Opposite party Gafur Ansari was rejected.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submitted that though the opposite party had taken the plea of divorce as against the petitioner by filing a show cause in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but such a plea was not accepted in view of the decision of the Apex Court as he took such plea in the show cause for the first time and not on earlier occasion .Witnesses were consistent in their evidence that the petitioner was an old aged lady who was married with the opposite party almost. 39 years ago and now she used to live at her parental home. It was stated that two acres of land was transferred in her favors but it was a barren land and owing to her old age she was not capable to maintain herself by undertaking cultivation of the said land. Besides, admittedly she was getting old age pension at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month under the Old Age Pension Scheme run by the State Government but payment was not made on the regular basis for which she had to move from pillar to post. The learned Counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that without considering the miserable life of the petitioner the learned Principal Judge, Family Court considered the aspect that she was in possession of two acres land and she was getting Rs 400/ - as old age Pension and dismissed her petition with the observation:

(3.) THE learned Counsel submits that witnesses produced on her behalf were consistent that she was tortured at the hands of opposite patty and ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home. The petitioner had earlier preened a petition for maintenance but since the dispute was resolved with the intervention of well wishers, she returned back to her matrimonial home where her husband -opposite party was living, with second wife and their two sons. Yet, she was again driven out and finding no way out, she settled at her parental home where she is leading a miserable life. Though there was no specific case of the petitioner as to what amount the opposite party was getting by way of pension but P.W.I was consistent that the O.P. had income of Rs. 8000/ - per month and therefore at least one thousand should have been given as against her claim of Rs. 2,000/ -.