WASHI ASGAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 2.9.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in M.P. Case No. 66 of 2007 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 3,000 per month to O.P. No. 2, wife and @ Rs. 1,000 each per month to her minor son and daughter. Mr. Mohd. Zafar Alam, learned Counsel, for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a disabled person and he is not gainfully employed. That he does not have any independent source of income or sufficient means to maintain himself and he is dependent upon his parents. That the ordered maintenance amount is exorbitant and excessive and these facts have not been considered by the Court below while passing the impugned order. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for restitution of conjugal right under statute 281 of the Mohammedan Law, which shows that the petitioner is still ready and willing to keep O.P. No. 2, wife but she on her own accord has left the matrimonial home. That there is no sufficient cause for her to live separately hence, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. that the impugned order is not sustainable in law or on facts.

(2.) Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Counsel, for O.P. No. 2, while countering the arguments has submitted that the Court below has considered the testimony of the witnesses and also discussed the evidence of the petitioner, who examined himself as RW 4, and, stated that he is a disabled person. The petitioner has deposed that he is unable to do any work properly on account of his disability and in his cross-examination he admitted that he does not have any difficulty in moving around and his father has a grocery shop. That the Court below has also considered and discussed the evidence of other witnesses and has passed the order of maintenance on the basis of -the evidence on record. That the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.

(3.) Heard. Perused the impugned order. The Court below has discussed the evidence of the witnesses 'examined on behalf of O.P. No. 2, namely, PWs 1 and 2, who have stated that O.P. No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 1,00,000. That she was ousted from the matrimonial home and she is living with her parents. The Court below has also discussed the evidence of the petitioner, who has been examined as RW 4, who has stated that opposite party No. 2 has been living voluntarily at the house of her parents along with her children without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the respondent/petitioner. This statement of the petitioner is falsified by his admission in cross-examination that he has solemnized a second marriage. The judgment of the Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2006 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this revision application and on perusal of the judgment, it transpires that the Court below has dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioner had solemnized second marriage and this was the just and sufficient ground for O.P. No. 2/wife, to live separately.