SEWANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Gumla in M. Case No.7 of 2006, by which order the learned S.D.J.M., Gumla considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming for maintenance of herself and her two children, namely, Atul Kumar Bhagat and Shilpi Sharda Rani, found that the petitioner, Sew anti Devi is presently employed as a Para Teacher and is setting monthly salary of rupees two thousand per month, hence no maintenance in her favour is allowed. So far as her two children, namely, Atul Kumar Bhagat and Shilpi Sharda Rani are concerned, learned S.D.J.M. has granted maintenance of rupees two thousand per month for their education.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed this application on behalf of the petitioner since learned S.D.J.M. committed an error of law in coming to a finding that the wife who is employed as a Para Teacher, which is fully contract job and she is getting monthly salary of rupees two thousand per month and as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is presently working as a Government teacher and he is only getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/ - per month and the claim of the petitioner -wife that the opposite party no.2 -husband has got landed property in the village and earns more than Rs. 1,00,000/ - from the land per annum, but the joint landed property of which he is a share holder. The impugned order has been passed in his absence as he was in custody in a case filed by the petitioner -wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that is why he was unable to defend himself in the trial Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any proof that the motorcycle, tractor or any landed property are in his own name. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable as the petitioner -wife is already earning for maintaining herself and therefore she does not deserve any further amount.