Nelson Pittar vs The State of Jharkhand, Teresa Pal @ Lakshmi, Mary Peter and Trikal Peter

H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the opposite party and learned Counsel for the State.

The instant revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Maintenance Case No. 17 of 1997, whereby the court below, has directed the Petitioner, Nelson Pittar to give maintenance of Rs. 800/per month, to his wife opposite party No. 2, Teresa Pal @ Lakshmi and Rs. 500/- per month each to his daughters opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 namely Mary Peter and Trikal Peter respectively.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner is not challenging that part of the order passed by the Court below by which maintenance has been granted to his daughters and he is also giving maintenance to his daughters. He is challenging the impugned order so far as maintenance granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 Teresa Pal @ Lakshmi, who is the wife of this Petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order granting maintenance is illegal in as much as the husband was not examined as witness in this case. The Court has relied upon the deposition of the Petitioner marked as Ext. 2 in another case. Learned Counsel has accordingly submitted that the impugned order can not be sustained in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the Court below has discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the both the parties and has also given finding on the quantum of maintenance.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that in this case both the parties have adduced the evidences, which were considered by the Court below and in course of evidence Petitioner did not examine himself. No one else has to be blamed for this lapse on part of the Petitioner, if he abstained himself from being examined as witness. I also find from the impugned order that on the basis of material on the record, the Court below has given a finding that the Petitioner Nelson Pittar is driver in the Railway Department and has sufficient earning for giving the maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to his wife opposite party No. 2, Teresa Pal @ Lakshmi and Rs. 500/- per month each to his daughters opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 namely Mary Peter and Trikal Peter respectively.

In do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

This revision application is accordingly dismissed.