PARMANAND KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 15.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2008 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 for her maintenance from the date of the application, but in view of long pendency of the miscellaneous case the learned Family Court Judge has ordered that the arrears of maintenance for about 8 years shall be paid @ Rs. 3,000/- per month till realization of the entire arrears.

(2.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without determining earnings of the petitioner which according to him was Rs. 5,000/- per month, the learned Judge has awarded maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. During course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no proof of marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party no. 2 was produced and, in fact, she has married one Kailash Gupta, S/o- late Madhav Gupta, R/o- Nagaon, Badiali Uraon, District-Thane, Mumbai.

(3.) The petitioner has stated that at the time of the alleged marriage he was a minor. He has denied his marriage with the opposite party no. 2 and birth of a son from the wedlock. He has admitted the photographs which were tendered in evidence by O.P. No. 2 and marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-1/3. These photographs would show his marriage with the opposite party no. 2, but he has stated that those photographs were forcibly taken. He has produced voter identity card of one Reeta Devi in which name of her husband is shown as Kailsash Das to show that the opposite party no. 2 is married to another person, but it was without any photograph. He has produced some evidence also on his date of birth.