Akhilesh Kr. Jaiswal vs The State of Jharkhand and Amita Jaiswal @ Mona

H.C. Mishra

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 27.9.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in Cr. Misc. No. 16 of 2009, whereby, the Court below has directed the petitioner to make payment of maintenance to his deserted wife at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

It appears that the application was filed by the O.P. No. 2 Amita Jaiswal @ Mona, who is the wife of the petitioner, u/s 125 Cr.P.C., alleging that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband who was a drug edict and her ornaments etc. were also taken away and were sold by the petitioner. Thereafter, she is living at her parents'' place and has also stated that her husband is a businessman having income of Rs. 15,000/-per month and with these averments maintenance case was filed in the Court below, as the wife was unable to maintain herself.

The petitioner had opposed the prayer, but he has admitted the marriage between the parties and it is also admitted that the petitioner was running business from his house.

The Court below after appraisal the evidence adduced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the O.P. No. 2 wife had reasonable cause for not living with her husband. The Court has taken into consideration the income of the petitioner from business to be Rs. 10,000/-per month and has directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the case of maintenance was filed by O.P. No. 2 wife soon after the filing of the suit for restitution of conjugal life by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that without any evidence as to the earning of the petitioner, the Court below has taken the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 10,000/-per month and has passed the order of maintenance. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for O.P.2 on the other hand has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment.

Upon hearing learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that admittedly the petitioner is having a readymade garments business in his house and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that there are other shops also in the house of the petitioner, which is situated in the market place in the town of Dumka and accordingly the Court below, taking the income of the petitioner at lesser side to be Rs. 10,000/- per month has awarded maintenance to the O.P. No. 2-wife. I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgment worth interference in revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application, which is accordingly, dismissed.