Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 154 (MP)

Satish Patel v. Pusiya Bai

2004-02-12

NARAIN SINGH AZAD

body2004
JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.7.1998, passed by IInd ASJ, Mandla in respondent's Criminal Revision No. 64/96, wherein setting aside the order of rejection passed by JMFC, Mandla on respondent's maintenance petition, registered as MCrC No. 159/95 on 26.8.1996, The IInd A.S.J. Mandla directed this petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 600/- to the respondent, as maintenance since 26.8.1996, the date of which, the final order was passed in respondent's maintenance petition, bearing MCrC No. 159/95. It is not being disputed that respondent is the wedded wife of petitioner and the petitioner is working as Upper Division Clerk in Government Service. It is further an admitted fact that son Nagendra is born out of this wedlock, who was aged about eleven years at the time of filing of maintenance petition in 1992 and was reading in Class fifth, who is living with the respondent Smt. Pusiya Bai, his mother. According to the respondent, the petitioner repeatedly asked the respondent to get the agriculture land of her mother, transferred in the name of the petitioner, for which, she did not agree, and hence, the petitioner turned her out alongwith son Nagendra. Then on 25.10.1992, the petitioner made attempt to cut both the hands of the respondent in respect of which respondent Smt. Pusiya Bai lodged a report at police station Mandla and went to her mother, where she is still residing. According to the respondent, the petitioner earns Rs. 24,000/- approximately per year from agriculture land, and draws a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month, as a Clerk, therefore, the respondent may be awarded Rs. 600/- per month for herself and Rs. 400/- per month for her son, making a total of Rs. 1,000/- per moth, as maintenance. Denying the allegations levelled by the respondent, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that respondent lived with him for a period of 2-3 years only after the marriage, and thereafter, she is living with her mother. It is also the case of the petitioner that inspite of repeated persuasion, the respondent is not ready to join the petitioner. According to petitioner, respondent is in possession of 8-10 acres of land, and therefore, she is capable to maintain herself. It is also the case of the petitioner that inspite of repeated persuasion, the respondent is not ready to join the petitioner. According to petitioner, respondent is in possession of 8-10 acres of land, and therefore, she is capable to maintain herself. Drawing the Courts attention to para four and five of the statements of respondent Smt. Pusiya Bai, it is argued by Shri Trivedi, Advocate that Smt. Pusiya Bai is the exclusive owner and in possession holder of 7-8 Acres of Agriculture land, as admitted by Smt. Pusiya Bai, the respondent, in para five under cross-examination, because her mother is no more, and as such, she is capable to maintain herself, but it is also stated by Smt. Pusiya Bai, the respondent in para six under cross-examination, that only two to four begs of wheat she gets out of this land, which is being cultivated by a contractor on half share. It is also stated by Smt. Pusiya Bai, the respondent in para 6 under cross-examination that for maintaining herself, she has to take the loans. Then, on the basis of exhaustive and meticulous appreciation of pleadings and evidence of both the parties, the learned revisional Court has recorded these positive findings that the respondent has just and proper ground to live separately, she is unable to maintain herself and that being capable to maintain, this petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent Smt. Pusiya Bai and son Nagendra. Then taking into account, the agriculture land, which is in possession of the respondent and its crops, so also the income of the petitioner and the relevant authorities, it is opined by the learned Judge of the revisional Court that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs. 600/- per month, as maintenance, from the petitioner, since date of order, passed in respondent's maintenance petition, registered as M.Cr.C. No. 159/95. Thus, in the absence of any illegality, impropriety or perversity and in the aforesaid findings of the revisional Court, I do not find any substance in this revision petition, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.