AJAY KUMAR NAYAK Vs. PADMA DEVI @ GUDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6th February, 2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, Camp Court Bermo at Tenughat in Original Maintenance Case No.94 of 2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the learned court below has passed the order of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to the respondents, in total Rs. 3,000/- per month, with effect from the date of the order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family court, Bokaro has committed serious error in directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to the respondents, in total Rs. 3,000/- per month, without ascertaining the real income of the petitioner and, thus, the same is not tenable in law. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 (wife of the petitioner) has lodged a criminal case against the petitioner, being Mahuatand P.S. Case No.18 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the period the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid criminal case, he executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent no.1 for running the firm, namely, M/s. Sandhya Enterprises. The respondent no.1-Padma Devi @ Gudia is a teacher, having income of Rs. 30,000/- per month, whereas the petitioner, at present, has no source of income, as he is sitting idle. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent no.1 (wife of the petitioner) as well as respondent nos.2 and 3 (sons of the petitioner), amounting to Rs. 1,000/- each, in total Rs. 3,000/- per month, is wholly illegal.

(3.) Having learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the contents of the writ petition and the impugned order dated 6 th February, 2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, it appears that the learned court below, while granting interim maintenance to the respondents, has appreciated the fact that though the petitioner pleaded in his reply that the respondent no.1 is a teacher in a English medium school at village Khetko and she is also engaged in a morning school, namely, Rajendra High School, Jarangdih, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro, yet he has not produced any document in support of the said averment. It has further been held by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that the petitioner has accepted in his show cause reply that he is owner of M/s. Sandhya Enterprises at Lalpania and is also a contractor having monthly income of more than Rs. 50,000/-. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has further held that the final order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is yet to be passed and, thus, it was thought proper to direct the petitioner for making payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to the respondents being wife and sons of the petitioner, respectively.