Anand Soni vs Smt. Geeta Soni

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by the Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJC No. 1/2007 whereby a maintenance of Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 1500/- per month was granted to the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively.

The respondents have filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for grant of maintenance. The applicant in his reply denied the allegations made in the application. He has accepted that initially he was agent to the Post Office, but vide order dated 6.3.2006 his agency was suspended and he is an unemployed person. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court has granted maintenance to the respondents as mentioned above.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it would be apparent that the applicant could not show his single effort to bring the respondents in his house. Looking to the statements given by the respondent No. 1 and the applicant, it would be apparent that the trial Court has rightly found that the applicant does not want to reside with the respondents and the respondent No. 1 has sufficient reason to live separately, and therefore she was entitled to get maintenance without living with the applicant.

It was proved that the expenditure of the respondents is approximately Rs. 4000/- per month. According to the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Mohd. Hanif v. Amina" [1986 (2) MPWN 65] it was for the applicant to prove his income, but he was hidden all the facts. It was pleaded by the respondents that the applicant had a jewellery shop. He was also agent of the Post Office and LIC but he did not say anything about his jewellery shop and he did not show that his LIC agency was cancelled. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the applicant of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The applicant could not prove that he was unable to give maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondents. Under such circumstances, there is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the present revision is not at all acceptable. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed at motion stage. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.