BINDHYACHAL CHOWRASIYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella -Kharsawan in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2013, whereby he allowed the application filed by opposite party No. 2 under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - per month as maintenance from the date of order.

(2.) Sri Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact no notice served upon the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 had filed Vakalatnama in the court below on his behalf. Accordingly, it is submitted that the ex -parte order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that in the maintenance petition opposite party No. 2 had prayed for Rs. 7,000/ - per month as maintenance, but the court below awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - which is beyond the prayer made by the opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, he submits that impugned order may be set aside and case be remitted back to the court below for passing fresh order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the court below has not given reason for coming to the conclusion that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled for Rs. 10,000/ -, thus on that ground also the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to keep his wife, therefore, the present application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Afaque Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the petitioner has not filed any application in the court below even after passing of the impugned order that the Vakalatnama filed on his behalf by an advocate is forged Vakalatnama. Even in the revision application, petitioner nowhere stated that his signature on the aforesaid Vakalatnama is forged. Accordingly, Sri Afaque Ahmad submits that now it does not lie in the mouth of petitioner to say that the aforesaid Vakalatnama has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the court below with a view to extract ex -parte order. It is then submitted that while passing the order of maintenance the learned court below considered that the petitioner is working in the Indian Army as Office Assistant and getting salary of Rs. 30,000/ - per month. It is submitted that P.W. -1 & 2 had also deposed and stated in their evidence that the petitioner is working in Army and his monthly salary is about Rs. 35,000/ -. Sri Afaque Ahmad submits that in this Court petitioner has annexed his salary slip in the rejoinder, which also shows that after statutory deduction, Rs. 25,030/ - credited in his bank account. Aforesaid salary slip shows that without deduction his salary is Rs. 33,074/ -, which is inconsonance with the evidence given by P.W. -1 and 2. It is submitted by Sri Ahmad that admittedly Opposite party No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, she is entitled for maintenance. He then submits that it is an admitted position that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. and also a case under the Domestic Violence Act, because the petitioner used to harass and torture her. It is submitted that this fact stated by the opposite party No. 2 in her evidence. Accordingly, Sri Ahmad submits that the opposite party No. 2 had sufficient reason for not residing with the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned court below considered all the aspects of the matter and then come to the conclusion that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled for maintenance.