Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 829 (JHR)

Uttam Baral v. Putul Baral

2017-05-08

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Ms. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1. 2. This application has been preferred against the order dated 17.12.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 182 of 2010 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby and where under the amount of maintenance has been enhanced and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2500/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1500/- per month to each of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a suit for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the petitioner was decreed in his favour but the opposite party no. 1 without any reasonable cause had left her matrimonial house and has refused to return back. It has been submitted that the case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was also instituted against the petitioner which ended in acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a worker in a jewelry shop and is not in a position to make payment of such a huge amount of maintenance as has been enhanced by the learned court below. It has further been submitted that the earlier order was fully being complied with and the petitioner was regularly making payment of maintenance to the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3. 4. Mr. A.K. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the amount which has been awarded in favour of the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 is a meager amount. 5. It appears that earlier the petitioner had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 344 of 2001. In the said application an order was passed by the learned court below in which maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 1 whereas opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- each per month. Subsequently in 2010 an application was preferred by the opposite party no. In the said application an order was passed by the learned court below in which maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 1 whereas opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- each per month. Subsequently in 2010 an application was preferred by the opposite party no. 1 under section 127 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for enhancement of the maintenance in view of the rising price index which was finally decided vide order dated 17.12.2016. 6. It appears from the impugned order that an admission has been made by the petitioner that he owns a double storied building in the town of Purulia and also works as a gold smith though he has not accepted the fact as to whether he is the owner of the shop or not. In view of the admission of the petitioner the amount of maintenance has been enhanced to a reasonable amount as has been stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 that one of the child has already become a major and the second child is on the verge of becoming a major. 7. In such circumstances, therefore, the liability of the petitioner has further been reduced. Even otherwise in view of the income of the petitioner which has properly been assessed by the learned court below the amount of maintenance which has been awarded to the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 does not call for any interference and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby, dismissed.