UTTAM BARAL Vs. PUTUL BARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1.

(2.) This application has been preferred against the order dated 17.12.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 182 of 2010 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby and where under the amount of maintenance has been enhanced and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1500/- per month to each of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a suit for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the petitioner was decreed in his favour but the opposite party no. 1 without any reasonable cause had left her matrimonial house and has refused to return back. It has been submitted that the case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was also instituted against the petitioner which ended in acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a worker in a jewelry shop and is not in a position to make payment of such a huge amount of maintenance as has been enhanced by the learned court below. It has further been submitted that the earlier order was fully being complied with and the petitioner was regularly making payment of maintenance to the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3.