Mahesh vs Rrakhi and Another

S.S. Dwivedi, J.—The applicant has preferred this revision u/s 397 of the Cr. P.C., feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the Presiding Judge, Family Court, Indore, in MCRC No. 374/2005, whereby allowed the petition filed u/s 125 of the Cr. P.C., and ordered for grant of maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month in favour of the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000 per month in favour of the minor son, non-applicant No. 2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the present applicant Mahesh. Their marriage took place on 22.1.2003. During their wedlock the non-applicant No. 2, minor child born to the non-applicant No. 1. After that it is alleged that the present applicant, husband treated the wife with cruelty, therefore, she is forced to live separately from her husband and thereafter the husband is not paying any maintenance amount to the non-applicant, wife and minor son. The present applicant is serving in the District Court at Burhanpur as Clerk Steno Typist and getting Rs. 5,000 as salary on the basis of the aforesaid ground 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 due appreciation of the entire evidence on record vide impugned order dated 13.11.2006, allowed the petition filed u/s 125 of the Cr. P.C. and ordered for payment of the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500 per month in favour of the non-applicant No. 1, minor son. Feeling aggrieved by which the applicant/husband has preferred this revision.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 is present in person and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that he is ready to live with the non-applicants and the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately without any sufficient reason, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from her husband and the learned Trial Court has wrongly awarded the maintenance amount in favour of the non-applicant No. 1 and in the alternative prayed for just and suitable reduction of the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court in favour of the non-applicants.

In reply, the non-applicant No. 1 appeared in person, submits that due to the cruel treatment by the applicant/husband, she is forced to live separately and the Trial Court has rightly granted the maintenance amount in favour of the non-applicants and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned order, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision.

After consideration of the rival contentions made by the parties and on perusal of the evidence led by the parties, it is apparent that admittedly the non-applicant No. 1 is living at Indore with her minor son. It is also proved fact that the applicant/husband is serving as Clerk Steno in the Court at Burhanpur and getting sufficient salary from which he can maintain the non-applicant wife and minor son.

On perusal of the statement given by the non-applicant Smt. Rakhi, it is apparent that due to the cruel treatment, she is forced to live separately from her husband. It is alleged that the non-applicant is also contacted with some other lady namely Sevantibai and because of that reason also now she does not want to live with her husband. It is also on record that the applicant/husband has also filed a divorce petition in the District Court at Khandwa. Looking to the aforesaid statement given by the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Rakhi, it is apparent that she has sufficient reason to live separately and being husband, it is the duty of the applicant/husband to give maintenance amount to the non-applicant No. 1, the wife and non-applicant No. 2, minor son.

Thus, on over all reappreciation of the statement given by the non-applicant No. 1 and the present applicant/husband, in my considered opinion the learned Trial Court has rightly held that non-applicants are entitled to get maintenance amount from the present applicant/husband.

With regard to the quantum of the maintenance amount is concerned, the amount of Rs. 2,500 to a major lady and Rs. 1,000 to minor child, does not appear to be excessive looking to the present expenses.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion the learned Trial Court has rightly granted aforesaid amount in favour of the non-applicants and no grounds are available for any interference.

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