AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2010, passed by Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Camp Kashipur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 315 of 2007, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month to his wife, and Rs. 500/- per month to each of his children (in all Rs. 2000/- per month).
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Omwati got married to the revisionist, and two children (one son and one daughter) were born out of the wedlock. It is further pleaded by the respondent No. 1 that she was forcibly ousted from her in-law''s house, and compelled to leave the house of her husband. She has further stated that she was beaten by the revisionist. It is also pleaded by her that her husband (revisionist) not only has income from the agriculture but also runs a shop. Alleging that Rs. 30,000/- per month is the income of her husband, the respondents (wife and the minor children) claimed maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month.
The revisionist contested the application moved u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., by the present respondents before the trial court but admitted that he got married to respondent No. 1 Omwati. It is also admitted by him that respondent No. 2 Km. Himani and respondent No. 3 Himanshu are his children. However, he denied having ill-treated the respondents for getting them ousted from his house. It is also pleaded by him that he is a labourer. The revisionist further pleaded that his wife (present respondent No. 1) know stitching and embroidery work and earns by doing said job @ Rs. 4000/- per month.
The trial court recorded evidence of the parties, and after hearing them found that respondent No. 1 is entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month, and each of the children (i.e. respondent No. 2 and 3) are entitled to maintenance @ 500/- per month from the revisionist.
The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the amount of Rs. 2000/- per month directed to be paid by the revisionist is arbitrary, and against the evidence on record. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 is able to maintain herself by doing stitching and other works.
In the grounds of appeal, it is nowhere pleaded that the minor children (respondent No. 2 and 3) have any means to maintain themselves. Whether the revisionist earns or does not earn, it is his liability to maintain his children. As for the wife only Rs. 1000/- per month is directed to be paid u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. In the present day circumstances, no woman can survive in less than that amount. The trial court has already accepted the version of the revisionist that he is a labourer, and thereby assessed his income at Rs. 3000/- per month. From no stretch of imagination, said finding can be said to be unreasonable.
Though, it is argued before this Court that the respondent No. 1 knows stitching and embroidery work and can maintain her, but there is no evidence on record to show that she is actually earning any income by doing that job. What Smt. Omwati has stated as PW-1 before the trial court is that though at the time of marriage she knew some stitching work, but since her vision has become weak, she is unable to do that work to earn for herself. The trial court has committed no error of law in accepting her explanation.
As to the ill treatment, which forced the respondent No. 1 to leave her husband''s house, the present respondent No. 1 appears to have led the evidence to show that she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband and left his house. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the wife lived separately without any sufficient reason. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order, challenged in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Stay Vacation Application No. 150 of 2011, also stands disposed of).