Jai Prakash Pandey vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Jaya Roy, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision application for setting aside the order dated 2 9.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. case No. 211A of 2002 whereby he has allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance amount filed by the present opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Meena Pandey u/s 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the Principal Judge Family Court, Jamshedpur u/s 127(1) Cr.P.C. praying therein to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1500/- per month on the ground of price rise of the present market. The trial court allowed the said petition and enhanced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 2000/- per month.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner admitted that opposite party No. 2 Meena Pandey is his wife. His main grievance is that the amount enhanced by the trial court is too excessive in comparison to his earning. It was further submitted that the petitioner is neither the Managing Director of Herbal Pharmasutical Company, Bihar, Patna nor he is getting any rent from his house, as contended by the opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that the applicant- opposite party No. 2 is a graduate and is earning Rs. 3000/- per month from tuition.

I have perused the impugned order. I find from the impugned order that the petitioner produced Ext. A i.e. a decree passed in title partition suit No. 171/2005 (Ext. A) which shows that the petitioner, who was defendant No. 2 in the said suit, has not been allowed any share in the tripled storied building situated at North Srikrishnapuri, Patna which property belonged to his father. This decree is a compromise decree. On the other hand the petitioner himself has deposed in his evidence that his mother and younger brothers are also dependant upon him. Taking all these facts into consideration it is very difficult to believe that the petitioner has not got any amount from his father''s property when the said building has been given on rent and it fetches a good amount of rent. It appears that the petitioner has tried to escape the liability of paying maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 and for that purpose the petitioner has obtained the said compromise decree only to show that the petitioner has not been given any share in the ancestral property. The trial court has discussed the evidence adduced by both the parties in detail. The opposite party No. 2 (applicant) admittedly has not produced any document to show that the petitioner is Managing Director of the said Herbal Company at Patna but it does not mean that the petitioner has got no source of income for his livelihood. He himself has stated in his evidence in para 16 that he is depositing the amount of maintenance regularly.

The question as to whether the petitioner is earning a good amount or not, as contended by the opposite party No. 2 or the opposite party No. 2 is able to maintain herself or not, has already been decided in the earlier order dated 4.8.2001. Now the only question which is to be decided is whether the amount of maintenance of Rs. 500/- as granted by the earlier order is required to be enhanced or not in view of the present price rise ? According to the application - opposite party No. 2 her husband (the petitioner) is earning Rs. 18000/- per month from rent coming from his father''s property. On the other hand, the petitioner has not led any evidence controverting this statement of O.P. No. 2 except that his mother, brothers and other members are in his joint family. In such a situation one flat would be sufficient for the residence of the aforesaid persons. It can, therefore, be inferred that from the tripled pucca building situated at North Sri Krishnapur, Patna which has been lent on rent, the petitioner is earning a good amount of rent. Therefore, the contention of opposite party No. 2 that her husband is earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, cannot be discarded as it does not appear to be improbable. Ext. A proves that there are four flats in the said tripled storied building. The contention of opposite party No. 2 that her husband is earning Rs. 18000/- per month may not be correct but it is clear that the petitioner is earning a good amount from rent. The petitioner has denied that he is the Managing Director of Herbal Company, Patna but he has also not clarified that he is employed on any other post of the said Company. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the petitioner is sitting idle.

Considering all the aforesaid facts and also the price rise coupled with the fact that the petitioner is earning a good amount from rent, in my opinion, the amount of maintenance granted by the Principal Judge Family Court, Jamshedpur is neither unreasonable nor is excessive, rather, it is quite just and proper. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.