SANTOSH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the order dated 25.05.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 38 of 2015.

(2.) Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C is a social and beneficial provision. During the proceeding of the maintenance case the opposite party-wife has examined four witnesses. It has been brought on record that the opposite party-wife was threatened in connection to demand of dowry and she has asserted that the petitioner has contracted second marriage. The learned trial Judge has on a consideration of the materials on record come to a definite finding that the petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife and his wife has no sufficient means to maintain herself. The learned trial Judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3000/- per month to his wife as maintenance. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has no independent source of income, in face of the evidence brought on record by the applicant in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C must fail. Even otherwise also taking note of the minimum wages fixed for unskilled labour, the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month awarded to his wife must be sustained.