Pradeep Das @ Pradip Kumar Das vs State of Jharkhand and another

Prashant Kumar, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Maintenance Case no. 288 of 2012, whereby and where under he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of the said order.

It is submitted by Sri Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, marriage of the petitioner with opposite party no.2 has not been proved. Under the said circumstance, the maintenance allowance awarded by the court below can not be sustained. It is further submitted that petitioner is a student of P.K.Roy Memorial College, Dhanbad, thus he has no earning.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.

From perusal of the finding of the court below, I find that above contentions have been dealt with by the learned court below at paragraph no.12 and 13 of the impugned order. After considering the Lagan Patri (ext.2), Invitation Card and other oral evidence, learned court below came to the conclusion that petitioner was married to the opposite party. Thus, I find no reason to disturb the aforesaid finding which is based on evidence.

Now coming to the second contention, I find that the petitioner, who examined himself in the court below as O.P.W.1 has not stated in his examination-in-chief that he is a student of P.K.Roy Memorial College, Dhanbad nor he stated that he is not working as para teacher and his monthly income is not Rs. 10,000/- .

On the contrary, the opposite party no.2 in her deposition has categorically stated that petitioner is working as para teacher and he also use to earn from private tuition and his monthly income is about Rs. 10,000/-.

In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstance, since petitioner has not led any evidence in rebuttal of aforesaid statement of P.W.1, I do not find any reason to disturb the above findings of the court below, where it is held that petitioner is para teacher and his monthly income is Rs.10,000/-.

In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this revision application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.