AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jaya Roy, J.—Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for setting aside the part of the order dated 17.07.2006 passed by the Principal judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 32 of 2005 whereby the court below has refused to grant the maintenance in favour of the applicant /Opposite Party No. 1 (the wife of the present petitioner) and directed to pay the maintenance to the son of the present petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) per month for his monthly expenses like school fees, books, uniforms and conveyance etc. and a sum of Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. one thousand) for his food, medicine and clothes, per month Horn the date of passing of the order. The present petitioner has challenge the part of the order whereby the court below has granted maintenance to his son.
The applicant/opposite party namely Jainab Khatoon filed a Maintenance Case No. 32 of 2005 against her husband Md. Sajjad Ansari (the present petitioner) for granting maintenance allowance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. to her and also to their son.
The applicant''s case in brief is that she is legally married wife of the present petitioner Sajjad Ansari. They were married on 16.04.2001 at Patratoli, Kanke, Ranchi. After marriage, both the parties led their conjugal life at village Heth Konki under Pithoria Police Station in the district Ranchi. Out of the said wedlock, a baby was born on 26.04.2003. Thereafter, the family members of her husband started demanding dowry of Rs. 25,000/- and one Auto Rickshaw for her husband. As the demand could not be fulfilled by the father of the applicant, they started torturing the applicant and ultimately she was kicked out from her marital house on 26.05.2003. As she had no alternative, she went to her parent''s house along with her child. The applicant has stated that she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her child also. The income of her husband is not less than Rs. 25,000/- per month from the cultivation including other sources.
The Opposite party (the husband) appeared and filed his show cause stating therein that he has already divorced the applicant on 25.05.2005 and she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The opposite party has denied all the allegations and also denied the demand of any dowry from the applicant. During the proceeding, three witnesses were examined by the applicant while the opposite party examined himself as sole witness in support of his case.
The trial court after considering oral and documentary evidence, has come to the findings that there is no dispute between the parties that they were married and a son was born out of the said wedlock. It is further concluded and held by the trial court (hat the applicant has already been divorced by her husband on 25.05.2005 and she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance from her husband.
The trial court considering the evidence on record has come to a finding that the opposite party (the present petitioner) earns Rs. 300/-(Rs. three hundred) per day from his Auto Rickshaw and he also earns from cultivation. Thus, his earning can not be less than Rs. 7.000/- to 8,000/- per month.
Considering the case of both the parties and also in view of the admitted facts that the child was born out of their wedlock, i. have no hesitation to hold that the child is entitled for maintenance allowance from his father Sayad Ansari. The child is now aged about four years and he is studying in Mariya Montessori School. Thus, the maintenance amount i.e. Rs. 1,000/- for his school fees, uniform, books and for conveyance etc. and further an amount of Rs. 1,000/- for his food, medicine and clothes for better upbringing in total Rs. 2,000/- per month granted by the trial court to the child is not at all excessive and unreasonable. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.07.2006 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court.
Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.