Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 116 (MAN)

Md. Abdul Kadir v. Ebemton

2015-09-09

L.K.MOHAPATRA, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, J., 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Cril.(M)Case No.54 of 2010/75/12 granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent. Though this appeal was listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it was taken up for hearing. 2. The respondent filed the above criminal Misc. Application before the learned Family Court, Manipur u/s 125 Cr.PC claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. Both the parties are Mohamedan and marriage took place between them on 29.8.2008 according to Mohamedan customary rite. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife in the house of the appellant. It is alleged by the respondent in the petition that few months after the marriage, the appellant started demanding huge amount of money to start a business besides his Government service and accordingly she had to borrow a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-from 3/ 4 persons and handed over the money to the appellant. In spite of such payment, it alleged that the appellant continued to demand more money and on her failure to pay further money she was not allowed to stay in the house of the appellant. Not being in a position to bear such demand on the part of the respondent and torture meted out to her, the respondent left the matrimonial house and resided in a separate place. It is also alleged in the petition that the appellant neglected her and did not pay anything for her maintenance for which the present application was filed for grant of maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month. 3. The said application of the respondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he had divorced the respondent on 1.4.2010 and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur, on consideration of the materials placed before him, found that the appellant had divorced the respondent on 1.4.2010 and accordingly the respondent was entitled to maintenance since the appellant did not take any step to maintain her. The learned Judge, Family Court also found that the appellant is a Government servant drawing a monthly salary of Rs.17,555/- and accordingly allowed the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. 5. Shri Md. The learned Judge, Family Court also found that the appellant is a Government servant drawing a monthly salary of Rs.17,555/- and accordingly allowed the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. 5. Shri Md. Jalaluddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the order solely on the ground that the respondent left the matrimonial home on her own and refused to join the appellant and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does not hold good any further in view of the admitted fact that there is a divorce between the parties and such divorce took place on 1.4.2010. Even after the respondent is divorced from the appellant, she is entitled to maintenance. There is no dispute that the appellant is a Government servant drawing salary of Rs.17,555/-per month as is evident from the Ext.A/1, the Pay Certificate of the appellant. Therefore, grant of Rs.3000/- towards maintenance of the respondent is reasonable and does not require interference. 6. We, accordingly, find no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed.