NAGENDRA CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dtd. 24/3/2014, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Dhanbad in M.P Case No.333 of 2010, whereby and whereunder this petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500.00 per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000.00 each to both of his child total Rs.3500.00 per month.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case is that the opposite party no.2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 3/7/2005 at Dhansar according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 were living together and out of wedlock they were blessed with a daughter namely, Amrita and son namely, Gaurav. It has been alleged by the opposite party no.2 before the learned court below that due to non- fulfillment of dowry demand the petitioner and his family members tortured her mentally and physically and lastly on 14/8/2010 she was kicked out from the house along with her two minor children by the petitioner's family. It has been further alleged by opposite party no.2 before the learned court below that the petitioner herein has denied to maintain the her and their children. It further transpired from the record that the opposite party no.2 has no resources to maintain herself and her minor children and she is totally dependent upon her own parents. It has been further alleged by the opposite party no.2 (wife) that the petitioner herein is not giving any expenses towards maintenance. It has been further stated by the opposite party no.2 (wife) that the petitioner is an Electronic Engineer and he is earning about Rs.19,000.00 to 20,000/- per month and he is also earning Rs.10,000.00 to 15,000/-per month through electronic items. The petitioner herein appeared before the learned court below and alleged that the opposite party no.2 is living in adultery and she has illicit relationship with one Rabindra Singh Godhar. He further denied his income and also denied that he is an Engineer. The opposite party no.2 examined three witnesses and all of them supported the case of the opposite party no.2 (wife). In the cross examination the opposite party no.2 has stated that she is unable to substantiate by documents with respect to the income of the husband (petitioner).

(3.) The petitioner herein examined himself before the learned court below, he has admitted with respect to filing of complaint case by the opposite party no.2.