AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 303 wordsN. Dhinakar, C.J.—The petitioner, on being ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 500/-each to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by the Family Court has chosen to prefer the above revision.
The opposite party No. 2 filed a petition u/s 125, Cr PC seeking maintenance for herself as well as for her two children Suraj Kumar Poddar and Kajal Kumari (O.P. Nos, 3 and 4) by alleging that the petitioner having married her as per Hindu customs and rites in the year 1993 chased her out of the house after demanding dowry and that he has failed and neglected to pay her as well as her two children. The Family Court accepted the case of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by rejecting the contention of the petitioner that he never ill-treated his wife (O.P. No. 2) and that she has left him on her own volition, without even informing him. The Family Court also rejected his contention that he has no sufficient means to pay maintenance as he is only a labourer, since the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is earning his livelihood by selling photographs and has sufficient means to pay maintenance to his wife and two children, which he is duty bound to do so. Accordingly, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month to each of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, as maintenance.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner only reiterates the contention raised before the Family Court, which was rejected, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and this Court sitting and exercising revisional jurisdiction will not go into such finding given on question of facts.
No illegality or irregularity is brought to my notice. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.