AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed u/s 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the impugned judgment passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973. In respect of such order, this Court may call for and examine the records of the proceedings of the Family Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of the order, not being interlocutory and as such the present appeal is not maintainable. However, since the appeal was already admitted on 20.8.1996, we treat it as revision u/s 19(4) of the Act, and decide on merit.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad considered claim of Josna Mondal for maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month from her husband, Kailash Mondal vide Maintenance Petition No. 50 of 1993 and by the impugned judgment dated 14.11.1995, allowed her claim to get monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- with effect from January, 1995. The husband has challenged the said order in the present appeal.
Admittedly Kailash Mondal was married with Josna in the year 1991 and hence she was legally married wife of Kailash Mondal. Her husband was intentionally neglecting her. She was, therefore, living at her father''s house. The husband was employed with Damodar Valley Corporation and was getting monthly salary of more than Rs. 3200/-.
On the other hand, the wife was illiterate and unskilled and unless their marriage was dissolved by process of law, in the circumstances of the present case, husband to maintain his wife.
Although both parties made allegations against each other of adultery, the wife alleged her husband to have performed another marriage with one Bhobi Mondalain and the husband alleged his wife''s illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, Suresh Mondal, but on the materials brought on record, the Principal Judge found that she had no such illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. She had also no independent source of income of her own.
Considering all aspect of the matter, Principal Judge directed the husband to pay Rs. 500/- per month to his wife with effect from January 1995.
We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The case is dismissed, but without costs.