JAVED ABDUL RAZAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 25th of August, 2009, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 66 of 2008, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar, whereby and whereunder he allowed the aforesaid miscellaneous case and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1500/ - per month to opposite party No. 2 as maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. Sri Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment suffers from serious illegality and irregularity, because the learned Court below has not considered the evidences adduced by the petitioner so far it relates to income of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has adduced evidence to show that his monthly income is only Rs. 1500/ - to Rs. 1800/ - per month. Thus, the direction of the learned court below to pay Rs. 1500/ - per month as maintenance is unreasonable and excessive. Accordingly, Sri Mishra submits that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

(2.) On the other hand, Sri Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned court below has considered the evidences of both the parties on the point of income of the petitioner and had accepted the version of opposite party No. 2. He submits that from perusal of the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, it is clear that they have not been effectively cross -examined on the point of income of the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, learned court below has rightly accepted the version of opposite party No. 2. He further submits that there are contradictions in the statement of petitioner and his witnesses regarding his own income, therefore, the learned court below has rightly not accepted that petitioner's income is Rs. 1500/ - to Rs. 1800/ - per month.

(3.) Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned court below considered all the evidences available on the record. I have also gone through the evidences adduced by both the parties. From perusal of the deposition of opposite party No. 2 and other witnesses examined on her behalf. I find that all her witnesses stated that monthly earning of the petitioner is in between Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs. 20,000/ -. From perusal of the cross -examination of those witnesses, I further find that the said witnesses have not been effectively cross -examined on the point of income. Only some suggestions given to the witnesses, which were denied by them. It is well settled that a denied suggestion is no evidence. It is equally well settled that if certain statements made in the examination -in -chief and other party has not cross -examined the witnesses on those facts, then it will be presumed that other party had admitted those facts. In that view of the matter, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the judgment of the court below. Thus, I find no merit in this revision, accordingly, the same is dismissed.