SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that after the order passed by the learned Sessions Court he has been paying the maintenance amount to his wife and the minor daughter. Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has affirmed the same.

(2.) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the order dtd. 24/8/2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 145 of 2009 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.7000.00 per month each to his wife and the minor daughter from August 2016.

(3.) In the application under sec. 125 Cr.P.C which was filed jointly by the wife and minor daughter of the petitioner, his wife has claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month. She has made various allegations of harassment and torture at the hands of her husband and demand of various household articles such as washing machine, air-conditioner and also a car by her husband. She has made allegation of illicit relationship of the petitioner with a co-worker at the office. According to his wife at the relevant time the petitioner was employed as Hindi Stenographer under the Railways and earning salary of Rs.26,000.00 per month. He has additional income from agricultural and homestead lands and he possesses a house. The petitioner in his show-cause reply has denied the allegation of harassment and torture levelled against him by his wife. He has admitted that he is employed under the Railways and O.P. No.2 is his legally-wedded wife. However, he has stated that his wife was found in objectionable and compromising situation with a neighbour, namely, Dinesh Singh and that was the reason for discord between the couple. He has stated that on 25/7/2009 when he came back home from market he found his wife, Dinesh Singh and the wife of Dinesh Singh were busy in discussion and when he came there they started assaulting him. They confined him in a room, however, on an information given to the police he was rescued and Dinesh Singh, Birendra Prasad and Binod Kumar Singh were arrested in connection to the First Information Report lodged by him. On 26/7/2009 his wife and the minor daughter left the matrimonial home with valuable documents, cash, ornaments etc. and, therefore, he was constrained to lodge a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag under sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Controverting the claim of maintenance by his wife and the minor daughter the petitioner has set up a defence that on account of housing loan and L.I.C premium he has incurred huge expenses and he has to maintain his old retired father and the unemployed brother. His wife has stated that the petitioner would abuse her and use filthy language and sometimes scold him for giving birth to a daughter. In the trial the applicant-wife has examined herself as a witness besides her brother and father in support of her claim for maintenance from her husband. In the Court she has stated that Rs.1,60,000.00 was paid to her husband to satisfy his demand for dowry. In the Court she has reproduced her allegations made in the petition under sec. 125 Cr.P.C and claimed that she has no source of independent income. Her father and brother have also spoken about demand of dowry including air-conditioner and car. Her father has deposed in the Court that he is supporting his daughter and grand-daughter by paying Rs.8000.00 per month who are residing in a rented house. The petitioner in his evidence has stated that his wife is well-qualified and she has opened a beauty parlor at Hajipur and while so, she cannot claim that she has no source of income. Vikash Kumar who has been examined by the petitioner as a witness has stated in the Court that he knows both the parties and he has knowledge that the petitioner has taken L.I.C policies in the name of his daughter and he has availed a housing loan etc.