Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 740 (JHR)

Ramesh Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-17

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Maintenance Case No. 75 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month towards maintenance of his wife namely the Opposite Party NO.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. 3. The claim for maintenance from the petitioner was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized 38 years ago and in course of their cohabitation, she gave birth to two children. However, since the petitioner was not providing for her maintenance, the had to take shelter at her parents' house. Her further case is that though the matrimonial relation between her and her husband is still subsisting, but the petitioner had entered into a second marriage with another lady even during the subsistence of his marriage with the Opposite Party No. 2 and therefore. she had to leave the house and company of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, on the other hand, had contested the claim of the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that it was the lady who had deserted him ever since after the marriage. The petitioner has also levelled certain imputations against the character of the lady alleging that she has been maintaining extra-marital relations with some other persons. It was also contended by him that he has no means of livelihood. In course of the inquiry, the court below had obtained the evidences adduced by both the parties and considering the evidences, the trial court has held that there is relationship of husband and wife, between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 and since the petitioner had contracted a second marriage with another lady, it offers sufficient ground for the opposite party NO.2 to withdraw herself from the society of her husband and claim separate maintenance. Furthermore, on the issue of income of the petitioner, the trial court had considered the evidences that the petitioner happens to be self-employed as driver of an auto-rickshaw and his earnings are Rs.2,000/- per month and be Sides that he derives income from landed properties also. 5. Furthermore, on the issue of income of the petitioner, the trial court had considered the evidences that the petitioner happens to be self-employed as driver of an auto-rickshaw and his earnings are Rs.2,000/- per month and be Sides that he derives income from landed properties also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the learned court below has not recorded any definite findings as regards the actual earnings of the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner is virtually unemployed and dependent, the trial court should not have imposed any amount of maintenance against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the evidences adduced by the petitioner that the opposite party No.2 had voluntarily withdrawn herself frogs-society without any reasonable grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 would controvert the grounds advanced by the petitioner and submit that there is no infirmity and impropriety in the impugned order since all the relevant issues involved in the dispute, have been considered and have been settled by giving reasons. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. The trial court has framed the relevant issues and on considering the same on the anvil of the evidences on record. has recorded its findings holding that the petitioner IS liable to pay maintenance to his wife namely opposite party No.2, and further holding that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 1.000/- per month towards the maintenance of opposite party No.2. 8. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order of the court below and neither do I find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.