Amarjeet Singh vs Narendra Kaur and Others

S.S. Dwivedi, J.—The applicant/husband has preferred this revision petition u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M. Cr. C. No. 1165/2005, whereby ordered for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 in favour of the non-applicant No. 1, wife and Rs. 1,500 per month in favour of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, minor children.

Briefly stated facts of the case are the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Narendra Kaur is the legally wedded wife of the present applicant. Their marriage took place in January 1993 as per the customs prevailing in the Sikh family. During their wedlock the non-applicant No. 1 gave birth to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that after the marriage, husband started treating the wife with cruelty and also demanded dowry from her due to which the non-applicant No. 1, the wife had been forced to live separately at her parental house and her husband is not paying any maintenance amount to her and non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the non-applicants have filed a petition u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C, before the Family Court at Indore. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, by the impugned order dated 30.11.2006 allowed the petition and granted maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 in favour of the non-applicant No. 1, the wife and Rs. 1,500 each in favour of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, minor children. Feeling aggrieved by which the applicant/husband has preferred this revision.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the trial Court has wrongly ordered for the payment of total maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000 in favour of the non-applicants, whereas the income of the applicant/husband is only Rs. 3,000 per month. Similarly, the non-applicant No. 1, wife is living separately without any sufficient reason, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the applicant/husband and the trial Court has wrongly allowed the petition and granted maintenance amount in favour of the non-applicants, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

In reply, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

The only point arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the non-applicants are entitled to get maintenance amount from the present applicant or not.

It is not in dispute that the non-applicant No. 1, Narendra Kaur, is the legally wedded wife of the applicant Amarjeet Singh and non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor children of the parties. The non-applicant No. 1, Smt. Narendra Kaur, stated before the trial Court that due to cruel treatment and repeated demand of dowry she is forced to live separately from her husband and the husband is not paying any maintenance amount, whereas the minor children are taking education in a Public School for which she has to pay fees for the education. It is also stated by the wife Smt. Narendra Kaur in her statement that the husband Amarjeet Singh is running an Auto Parts Shop at Ratlam by which he is earning Rs. 30,000 per month and also getting rent from the house. It is true that the non-applicant No. 1, wife Smt. Narendra Kaur has not filed any document with regard to the income of the Auto Parts shop, but the applicant Amarjeet Singh (D.W. 1) has admitted the fact that he is running an Auto Parts Shop at Ratlam and in view of that the Trial court has roughly assessed the income of the Shop Rs. 10,000 per month to the applicant and this approach of the learned trial Court appears to be just and reasonable, out of which the applicant/husband can pay maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 per month to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,500 per month to each of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, minor children and looking to the present crises of the essential commodities and the living standard of the parties this amount of Rs. 3,000 per month to the non-applicant Nos. 1 and Rs. 1,500 each to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, does not appears to be excessive.

It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the non-applicant No. 1, the wife is living separately without any reason. The wife, Narendra Kaur has clearly stated that due to the cruel treatment other husband she is forced to live separately. This appears to be reasonable ground for living separately. Thus, on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence, in my considered opinion the learned trial Court has rightly found that there exists just and reasonable grounds for the non-applicants living separately.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Trial court has rightly granted maintenance amount in favour of the non-applicants and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Resultantly, the revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed accordingly.