Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1134 (JHR)

Sewanti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-17

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT : By Court.-This revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Gumla in M. Case No.7 of 2006, by which order the learned S.D.J.M., Gumla considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming for maintenance of herself and her two children, namely, Atul Kumar Bhagat and Shilpi Sharda Rani, found that the petitioner, Sew anti Devi is presently employed as a Para Teacher and is setting monthly salary of rupees two thousand per month, hence no maintenance in her favour is allowed. So far as her two children, namely, Atul Kumar Bhagat and Shilpi Sharda Rani are concerned, learned S.D.J.M. has granted maintenance of rupees two thousand per month for their education. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed this application on behalf of the petitioner since learned S.D.J.M. committed an error of law in coming to a finding that the wife who is employed as a Para Teacher, which is fully contract job and she is getting monthly salary of rupees two thousand per month and as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision reported in 2008(1) SCC (Cr.) page 356 in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, wherein it has been held that the Court must give a finding that the earning of the wife was sufficient for her maintenance and hence although the earning of the petitioner is not sufficient for her maintenance and hence the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is presently working as a Government teacher and he is only getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month and the claim of the petitioner-wife that the opposite party no.2-husband has got landed property in the village and earns more than Rs. 1,00,000/- from the land per annum, but the joint landed property of which he is a share holder. The impugned order has been passed in his absence as he was in custody in a case filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that is why he was unable to defend himself in the trial Court. The impugned order has been passed in his absence as he was in custody in a case filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that is why he was unable to defend himself in the trial Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any proof that the motorcycle, tractor or any landed property are in his own name. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable as the petitioner-wife is already earning for maintaining herself and therefore she does not deserve any further amount. 5. I have gone through the evidence on record, and find that the prosecution has examined three witnesses in the court below. The petitioner, who has examined herself as P.W. 3, has stated that her husband is working as a Teacher in the Govt. School at Gumla and he is getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Besides, she stated that he has got a motorcycle and a tractor in his name, but no proof has been filed nor the same has been controverted by the opposite party no. 2 in his counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, it is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2-husband, who is a Teacher in Government School and is earning monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- and also he has got some income from his landed property, hence, the opposite party no.2-husband has sufficient income to maintain his wife and his two children. 6. Considering his income, the learned court below rightly awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month to his children for education, but the trial court while giving a finding that the petitioner-wife is a Para Teacher and she is getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/ -, is sufficient in maintaining herself. 7. In my opinion the order of trial court is not correct because the husband, who is a Government Teacher and has got landed property, which is sufficient income to maintain his wife and his two children. 8. In my view, since the petitioner wife is already getting Rs. 2,000/- from her service as a Para Teacher and an additional sum of Rs. 1,000/- will be sufficient to add to her total income of Rs. 5,000/- per month to maintain herself and her two children. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and besides Rs. 8. In my view, since the petitioner wife is already getting Rs. 2,000/- from her service as a Para Teacher and an additional sum of Rs. 1,000/- will be sufficient to add to her total income of Rs. 5,000/- per month to maintain herself and her two children. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and besides Rs. 2,000/- per month as awarded in favour of two children the husband-opposite party no. 2 will also pay Rs. 1,0001- from the date of impugned order to his wife to supplement her income, so that she can maintain herself in a better way. 10. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.2.2007 is modified to the above extent.