Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 38 (JHR)

Rabindra Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-01-17

N.DHINAKAR

body2006
ORDER N. Dhinakar, C.J. 1. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as maintenance per month under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to Sunil Devi, his wife, who is the opposite party No. 2 in this revision. 2. Against the aforesaid order of the Family Court, present revision has been filed. 3. The petitioner married opposite party No. 2 on 7.5.1990 according to the Hindu religious customs and rites. Opposite party No. 2, Sunita Devi, was living with the petitioner for some time and thereafter the petitioner started demanding dowry. He also refused to feed her and threatened to kill her. In July 1998, she was chased out of the house and, therefore, she took shelter in the house of her parents, Thereafter, she filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court alleging that the petitioner being her husband is duty-bound to maintain her. The Family Court awarded maintenance, as stated above. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 before the Family Court in the petition filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are false and that he is ready to live with her, if she is willing to come and join him in his house. He also submits that a sum of Rs. 1,000 awarded as maintenance to opposite party No. 2 is on the higher side, since, according to him, the petitioner is only a labourer. 5. I have considered the contention and found no substance in both the contentions. 6. The Family Court accepted the evidence of opposite party No. 2 and rejected the plea taken by the petitioner that opposite party No. 2 left her matrimonial home on her own volition and that she refused to come and live with the petitioner. The Family Court found that it was only on account of the ill- treatment meted out to her, opposite party No. 2 had to leave her husbands house and since the petitioner did not choose to give any amount for her maintenance, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month as maintenance. 7. The Family Court found that it was only on account of the ill- treatment meted out to her, opposite party No. 2 had to leave her husbands house and since the petitioner did not choose to give any amount for her maintenance, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month as maintenance. 7. If the case of the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 2 has left her matrimonial home on her own volition without any reason, then the petitioner could have gone to the Civil Court by filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which admittedly he did not do. It is, therefore, clear that the plea taken by the petitioner before the Family Court could only be considered as an afterthought and it was taken with a view to avoid paying maintenance to opposite party No. 2, who is his wife. Therefore, I reject the contention that opposite party No. 2 left the house on her own volition. 8. As regards the second contention that the petitioner is a labourer and, therefore, will not be in a position to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as maintenance is also to be rejected. There is no material before this Court to show that the petitioner is only a labourer and that he could not pay the amount of Rs. 1,000 which, in my view, is not on the higher side, to opposite party No. 2, as maintenance. 9. The revision deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.