Pankaj Kumar vs Judge Family Court and Smt. Manju Sharma

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 14.05.2004, passed by Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month to his wife and Rs. 300/- per month to his daughter.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Pankaj Kumar got married to respondent No. 2 Manju Sharma on 07.12.1996, in District Udham Singh Nagar. It appears that after the birth of their daughter Ankita, their relations soured, and they started living separately. Respondent No. 2 Manju Sharma filed an application u/s 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) for maintenance for herself and for her daughter alleging that her husband earns Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The revisionist contested that application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., but admitted that he was married to the respondent No. 2. He further pleaded that his salary is Rs. 3,558/- per month. He pleaded that respondent No. 2 is earning, as she is working as a teacher.

The trial court, after recording evidence, and discussing the same, found that in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent No. 2 is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month for herself, and Rs. 300/- per month for her daughter. The trial court observed that from the record, it was proved that husband (revisionist) was earning Rs. 3,558/- per month. Said finding is based on the salary certificate produced by the revisionist.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist pointed out that marriage between the parties is already dissolved by the decree of divorce, and they are living separately. Merely for that reason, this Court does not find it proper to set aside the order passed by the trial court, unless the respondent No. 2 gets remarried, she is entitled to maintenance. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.