Pradeep Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the order dated 03.02.2017 passed in Maintenance Case No. 290 of 2012 by which he has been directed to

pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife.

Stand taken by the petitioner is that he, who has to support his mother, sister and two brothers, is unable to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife as

directed by the court.

Briefly stated, marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with O.P. No. 2 as per Hindu customs and at the time of the marriage according to O.P.

No. 2 her father gave utensils and Rs. 1,40,000/- in cash, however, family members of the petitioner started harassing her in connection to demand of

dowry. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 290 of 2012, the petitioner asserted that he has no permanent source of income and, in fact, it was

his in-laws who did not permit O.P. No. 2 to stay in her matrimonial home. His wife has examined four witnesses including herself and the petitioner

has also examined four witnesses to establish his aforesaid stand taken in the maintenance case. On examination of the evidence led by the parties in

the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 290 if 2012, the court came to a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to his wife.

Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on admitted facts when it is found that the petitioner has no independent

source of income grant of maintenance by the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 is illegal.

Marriage between the parties is not disputed by the petitioner. His wife has alleged harassment on account of demand of dowry and, therefore, it

must be construed in law that his wife has just excuse to leave her matrimonial home. It is not asserted by the petitioner that his wife has independent

and sufficient source of income and he does not have any source of income.

In the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 by which the trial judge has held that the petitioner is liable to

maintain his wife. On the question of quantum of maintenance, suffice would be to record that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is summary

in nature. It is a social and beneficial provision, while giving effect to which the court is not bound by strict rules of evidence. The trial court, taking

note of the minimum wages for unskilled labour, has fixed the quantum of maintenance.

In the above facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 and accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 422 of 2017 is dismissed.