Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 463 (JHR)

Satrudhan Prasad Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-28

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 14th January, 2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh, in Maintenance Case No.68 of 2009, whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.1,500/-as maintenance to his deserted wife and also an amount of Rs.1,000/-as maintenance to his deserted daughter. 3. From the impugned order it appears that the application was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the wife of the petitioner, who is O.P. No.2 in the present case, wherein she claimed to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of the wedlock they were blessed by a child. She has alleged cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and being driven away from the matrimonial home. She also claimed that the petitioner is having businesses of manure (khad) and all kind of seeds and also doing wholesale business in the field of rice, wheat and other crops, from which the petitioner has monthly income of Rs.1, 50,000/-. She has also claimed that the petitioner is also earning about Rs. 50,000/-per month from money lending business and accordingly she claimed a maintenance of Rs.20,000/-per month for maintenance of herself and her child. 4. It appears from the impugned order that notice was issued to the petitioner by the Court below and in spite of service of notice upon the petitioner, the petitioner did not appear in the Court below and accordingly the case was taken up ex parte against the petitioner. It further appears from the impugned order that the O.P. No.2 had examined four witnesses in the Court below including herself and her father and they proved the fact that the petitioner was having businesses of manure and all kind of seeds and also doing wholesale business in the field of rice, wheat and other crops and he was also in money lending business from which the petitioner had earnings of about Rs.2,00,000/-per month. It also appears from the impugned order that the Court below has not placed reliance upon the evidence of earning of the petitioner, but taking into consideration the nature of business of the petitioner, has come to a conclusion about the petitioner’s earning to be not less than Rs.15,000/-per month and has accordingly, passed the order of maintenance directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rs.1,500/-to his deserted wife and Rs.1,000/-to his deserted child. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in as much as there was no documentary proof of income of the petitioner in the Court below. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that it is fit case in which the impugned order be set-aside and the matter be remitted back to the Court below for fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 on the other hand opposed the prayer. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and after going through the impugned order, I find that the O.P. No.2 had examined four witnesses in the Court below out of them two witnesses are O.P. No.2 and her father, who have specifically proved that the petitioner was having the businesses as aforesaid. In view of the fact that no documentary prove of income of the petitioner from businesses could be brought on record by the petitioner, the Court below has, taking into consideration the nature of businesses of the petitioner, has come to a conclusion about the petitioner’s earning to be not less than Rs.15,000/-per month and passed the order of maintenance to his wife and child as aforesaid. 8. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this revision application is, hereby, dismissed.