JAIDEO BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Maintenance Case No. 108 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - per month towards the maintenance of the Opposite Party No. 2 and her child.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the evidences on record adduced by the parties which would categorically indicate that the petitioner's earning is less than Rs. 1,200/ - per month. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner explains that although in the impugned order, the learned Court below has discussed the evidences but on assertion as to the earnings of the petitioner, no discussion whatsoever, has been made and the vague and omnibus statement of the opposite party that she had heard that the petitioner earns a sum of Rs. 8,000/ - per month has been accepted without calling for affirmative evidence in support of such claim. Learned Counsel submits that though the petitioner was earlier employed and used to earn a sum of Rs. 1,200/ - per month, but subsequently after he had suffered serious illness on account of 'Chicken Pox', he lost his employment and he is presently unemployed and is dependent upon his father.

(3.) I find merit in the grounds advanced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Court below is hereby set aside and the case is remitted back to the Court below for recording fresh finding on the issue regarding the monthly income of the petitioner and for such purpose, if felt necessary, shall allow both the parties to adduce evidence.