SUNIL KERKETTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.1.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Maintenance Case No. 139 of 2007, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance to his deserted wife.

(2.) The impugned order shows that opposite party No. 2 Jigyasa Devi, filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Court below claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. According to her case, the marriage was solemnized on 3.6.2006 and soon thereafter, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and she was also pushed in the well on 9.6.2006, but she was rescued by the villagers. Even thereafter, she was living in the matrimonial home and ultimately, she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 2.8.2007. Claiming that she had no means to maintain herself and her husband was a Govt. employee and had sufficient income from salary as also from landed property, she filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The petitioner appeared in the Court below and filed his show cause and it is apparent that the marriage between the parties is an admitted fact in this case. It is stated by the petitioner that his wife is of quarrelsome nature and she had falsely implicated him in a criminal case for the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, in which, after investigation, the police had submitted final form. The petitioner denied the allegations, stating that the lady herself had left the matrimonial home, and accordingly, objected the prayer for maintenance.

(3.) The impugned order shows that three witnesses were examined by opposite party No. 2 wife and three witnesses were also examined on behalf of the petitioner in the Court below. The witnesses examined on behalf of the wife supported her case and they have claimed that the petitioner is a Govt. employee. This fact also finds admitted in the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses. According to the petitioner's case, he is only a Class IV employee in the Govt., getting the salary of about Rs. 6,000 per month, but he had not filed any document in support of his salary. The deposition of witness O.W. 3., examined on behalf of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-4, who has deposed that on 9.6.2006 the opposite party No. 2 had tried to commit suicide by jumping in a well, but she was rescued.