UMESH RAI Vs. RENU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAV on 13.05.2015 Delivered on 16/06/2015 Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Maintenance Case No. 88 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(two thousand) per month as maintenance to his wifeopposite party no.1 Renu Devi and a sum of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) per month to his minor son-opposite party no.2 Rahul Kumar from the date of filing of the maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ' the Code') and further directed to pay the aforesaid amount regularly by the 10th day of every succeeding month,.

(2.) At the instance of the present opposite party nos. 1 and 2, a petition under Section 125 of the Code was filed in the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih on the allegation that the opposite party no.1 is the legally married wife of the present petitioner and the marriage between them was solemnized about 10 years ago and from their wedlock, the present opposite party no.2 was blessed but after sometime, the petitioner along with his family members started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture and ultimately, she was driven out from her Sasural and even she was brutally assaulted and her husband and in-laws snatched all her belongings. It is also alleged that the petitioner solemnized second marriage with a lady Rekha Devi and from his second wife, he has three children. Whereafter, a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. was filed, which is still pending and thereafter the present case for grant of maintenance was filed as the petitioner refused to maintain her though he has got sufficient means and is earning Rs.6,000/- per month as Confectioner and Sweet maker and has also income of Rs.20,000/- per annum from agriculture.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order that after notice, the petitioner appeared in the court below and filed his show cause admitting the marriage with the present opposite party no.1 but denied to maintain her on the ground that he is still ready to keep the opposite party no.1 and her minor son with full dignity and honour. In the show cause, it is also stated that the opposite party no.2 knowingly and intentionally left her Sasural and company of this petitioner and she cannot take advantage of her own wrong by not coming back to the house of this petitioner and further denied that he earns handsome income from confectionery work and from agriculture rather he is working as a 'Daily Labour' in his village for his own survival and for survival of his second wife and three children and the old mother. Both parties adduced their respective oral evidences, whereafter the court below after scrutinizing the evidence available on record, directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance as indicated above. Hence, this revision.