ASHOK KUMAR KESHRI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order impugned dated 15.5.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Petition No. 189 of 2003 in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance amount to his wife O.P. No.2 a sum of Rs. 3,000/from the month of June, 2004.

(2.) BY assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, failed to consider the true spirit and intent of a proceeding as envisaged under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and passed the order for payment of Rs. 3,000/ - per month arbitrarily and in isolation of the ground realities i.e. the earning of the petitioner which was Rs. 2,200/ - per month only and therefore, he should not have been asked to pay more than what was his earnings. My attention was attracted by submission that the petitioner by displaying his bona fides started paying Rs. 1,200/ - per month to the opposite party No.2 and for the child being their maintenance amount without any order of the court and this fact was ignored while assessing the maintenance amount. The petitioner was not an income tax payee and was not in a position at all to pay Rs. 3,000/ - per month and the order impugned was passed without basis and application of judicial mind, which was liable to be set aside. Concluding his argument the learned counsel submitted that in compliance to the order passed by this Court on 28.7.2005 he is regularly paying a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - to the opposite party No. 2 without interruption for a single month and he is ready to pay Rs. 1,200/ - per month to the opposite party No.2 and the child for their maintenance from his meager monthly income.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner has. been paying a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - per month regularly to the opposite party No. 2 for her maintenance as well as of their child which was accepted and in that manner, I have reason to believe that though the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - per month is not a substantial amount for the mother and the growing child, but keeping in view the present means of the petitioner and implied consent of the parties, I observe that there would not be hesitation for the O.P. No.2 in accepting Rs. 2,000/ - per month being the maintenance of herself and the child as she was receiving regularly during pendency of this Criminal Revision.