BASANT PD. SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga, in Maintenance case no.13 of 2005, whereby the court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.4,000/ - as maintenance to his deserted wife, who is opposite party No.2 in this case. The Court below has also directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4,000/ - as maintenance for the minor son of the petitioner living with Opposite Party No.2. At the very outset, it may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the challenge of the impugned order only so far as it relates to the payment of maintenance to the opposite party No.2 and has submitted that he is not challenging the order whereby, the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.4,000/ - for maintenance of his minor child.

(2.) IT appears that the opposite party No. 2, Smt.Nandita Sahu had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the petitioner claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and alleging the cruelty and torture due to which she was driven away from the matrimonial home along -with her minor son. It is stated that the petitioner was working as an Engineer in ONGC and he was getting salary of more than Rs.40,000/ -. It was also contended that the petitioner had also an income of more than Rs.20,000/ - per month from the house property and accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 had claimed maintenance of Rs.17,000/ - per month for herself and Rs.8,000/ - per month for her minor son from the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Court below, so far as it directs the petitioner to make the payment to his wife is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, from the impugned order, it would appear that even the applicant wife had admitted in the Court below that the petitioner had left the service of the ONGC, but she has also alleged that the petitioner had joined a Multi National Company, for which, no proof was brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C prescribes that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, then only the liability of maintaining the wife arises. It has been submitted that in the present case, since the petitioner had left the service of ONGC the petitioner is not having sufficient means and the Opposite Party no.2, wife who is also working in 'Sarv Sikha Abhiyan' has sufficient means to maintain herself and accordingly, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Court below directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4,000/ - per month as maintenance to the opposite party wife. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside.