DR. TULSI KUMAR SAHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing this revision application under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act has questioned the legality of the order dated 21.02.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Case no. 12 of 2011 whereby and where under, he has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife-opposite party no.2 Bina Saha and Rs.2,000/- each per month to the minor daughters till they are married or gainfully employed.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of this revision application, in short, is that the marriage of present opposite party no.2 was solemnized with this petitioner on 26.02.2000 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and from the wedlock, the couple blessed with two daughters but aggrieved by the born of two daughters, the claimant-wife was subjected to physical and mental torture and he deserted his wife and two minor children on 04.10.2009 and refused to maintain them. Since then the opposite party no.2 along with her two daughters have been living in her Maika and they have no independent source of income to maintain her small family including the two minor daughters rather they are completely dependent upon her parents, who have their own expenses. On 08.01.2011, when the petitioner lastly refused to provide money for maintenance, the aforesaid case was filed with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance to the claimant-wife and Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance to the two minor children.

(3.) The present petitioner filed show cause in the court below stating that opposite party no.2- his wife is living separately at her own and even after his several attempts, she refused to come to the marital home. Thereafter, a suit for grant of decree of dissolution of the marriage of the parties with mutual consent was filed but due to exorbitant demand of permanent alimony by the wife, the suit could not be decreed and subsequently the same was dismissed as withdrawn and though this petitioner is a medical practitioner but he has no monthly income from medical practise as he is mainly relying on treatment by the alternative medicines.