AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jaya Roy, J.—The Petitioner has filed the instant revision application against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dnanbad has allowed the petition filed by the applicant-opposite parties No. 1 and 2 u/s 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. and thereby, increased the amount of maintenance from Rs. 800/- per month to Rs. 2100/- per month which was ordered to be paid from the date of the Order i.e. 30.04.2010.
The applicant-opposite party No. 1 had filed an application u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure. for enhancement of maintenance amount granted to her by order dated 21.09.2000 passed by the Principal Judge. Family court, Dhanbad whereby the petition filed by her u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. for grant of maintenance was allowed granting maintenance of Rs, 1,000/- per month in M.P. Case No. 97 of 2001. It has been stated that against the aforesaid order passed u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure., the present Petitioner-husband had preferred a criminal revision application before this Court being Cr. Rev. No. 624 of 2002 in which, after hearing the parties, this Court reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 800/- per month to the wife and the minor children by its order dated 20.03.2003. It appears that thereafter, the Petitioner had filed Cr. Misc. No. 46 of 2005 in which the maintenance amount hat been enhanced from Rs. 800/- to 2100/- by the impugned judgment.
The case of the applicant-opposite party, in brief, is that as her child born from their wedlock have now grown up and is going to school and the price of the commodities have increased, the maintenance amount be enhanced. Furthermore, the Petitioner is in service and his salary has also been increased, therefore, the applicants claimed for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month for the maintenance of herself and her minor child. The opposite party-present Petitioner appeared before the court and filed show cause stating therein that the applicant is his second wife as he married her become his first wife, always remained sick and was not in a position to perform household duties. The conditions for the marriage of the Petitioner with the applicant was that she would perform the household duties and take care of the children bom from his first wife and would live peacefully. The applicant-opposite party did not care for all these things and she refused to live with the Petitioner and she started living separately from the Petitioner. Moreover, the case of the Petitioner is that his daughter from his first wife is marriageable and he has no money even to perform her marriage. Therefore, the amount increased by the court below is very unreasonable and excessive. It has been stated by him that he is earning a very megar amount.
From the records, I find that the applicant-opposite party examined herself as a solitary witness in support of her case whereas the Petitioner-husband examined altogether four witnesses in support of his case, O.P. Ws. 1 and 2 are Md. Siraj Ansari and the first wife of the Petitioner, Md. Sattar respectively, O.P.W. 3 is Kanhaiya Prasad Singh and O.P.W.4 is the Petitioner himself.
Since the order granting maintenance has already been confirmed by this Court in the earlier criminal revision application No. 64 of 2002 vide order dated 20.03.2003 and the Petitioner has not challenged the said order before any higher court, the said order has now become final. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration in this application is only with regard to the quantum of maintenance.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has to maintain his four children bom from his first wife and also the parents of the first wife, altogether eight persons. It is submitted that it is, therefore, difficult for him to pay such a huge mount of maintenance to the applicants-opposite parties. It is further submitted that as the applicant-wife is also earning from tailoring and tuition amounting to Rs. 3,000/- per month, she is not entitled for enhancement.
From the impugned order, I find that the applicant-opposite party has filed xerox copy of the pay slip of the Petitioner for the period from 11.01.2010 to 10.03.2010 which shows that the gross salary the Petitioner is Rs. 23,144,12 and the net pay, after deduction of the maintenance amount for the applicants-opposite parties (Rs. 800), comes to Rs. 15,292/-. Therefore; the trial court has given a vivid finding after calculating the number of persons to be maintained and the amount of earning of the Petitioner. For better appreciation the relevant portion of the finding is quoted here in blow:
...Thus, the total number of persons to be maintained by the opposite party is ten'' and considering this number and the increase of the salary of the opposite party from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month, it is found that the Petitioner is definitely entitled to enhancement of maintenance and if the entire income is divided by ten then each member should be get Rs. 1500/- per month.
Regarding the earning of the applicant-opposite party the present Petitioner could not produce any evidence in support of his contention. On the contrary, he himself in his cross-examination has stated that he does not know the actual state of affairs of his second Sasural for the last eight years and, therefore, it is difficult for him to say whether the applicant herself is earning or not.
Considering the elaborate discussions made in the impugned judgment and also considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. I do not find that the amount of maintenance so granted by the court below i.e. Rs. 2100/- per month from the date of the order is unreasonable or unproportionate to the income of the Petitioner.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed.