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
5 paragraphs · 193 wordsPrashant Kumar
This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 90 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. No. 88 of 2009, where by he directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1000/- as maintenance to opposite party No. 2. It is submitted by Sri Yogesh Modi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that opposite party No. 2 is living in adultery, therefore, according to Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get maintenance.
From perusal of impugned order, I find that the adultery has not been proved. Under the said circumstance, I find no merit in the aforesaid submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has adduced evidence that he is earning only Rs. 2,600/- per month.
However, from perusal of impugned order, I find that the petitioner admitted that he is working in Gurgoan, Haryana. Under the said circumstance, it cannot be believed that he is earning only Rs. 2,600/- per month. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.