Raman Malhotra vs Smt. Pooja @ Bittu

Shashi Kant Sharma, J.—This criminal revision petition filed by petitioner Raman Malhotra is directed against the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application of the non-petitioner Smt. Pooja filed u/s 125, Cr.P.C. and has granted maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month for non-petitioner and Rs. 300/- per month each to her two daughters,

In the matter record from the Family Court was called for. Notice to non-petitioner was issued. Shri D.D. Patodiya has appeared for the non-petitioner. Arguments of the parties are heard.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner husband Raman Malhotra that the non-petitioner Smt. Pooja @ Bitto is his wife. It is contended that the petitioner husband Raman Malhotra still wants to keep with him his wife Smt. Pooja. It is then contended that he has not deserted her and, as such, the learned Judge, Family Court should not have passed the impugned order. It is also contended that the petitioner husband is earning simply, Rs. 1,200/- per month. Therefore, the order of the Family Court for paying Rs. 1,100/- per month as maintenance is harsh and the amount is excessive. It is contended that looking to his income at the best the learned Judge, Family Court could have passed order for Rs. 800/- per month only.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that it is wrong to say that the husband Raman Malhotra has not deserted his wife Pooja. It is contended that the learned Judge, Family Court has discussed the entire evidence and came to the right conclusion that the husband has deserted his wife. It is contended that before the Family Court even the petitioner-husband in his statement has admitted that he has turned his wife out of the home. It is contended that the wife was always willing to live with her husband and even during the pendency of the case before the Family Court she went to the house of the husband but the husband has refused to keep her and maintain her and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Family Court is absolutely correct. It is also contended that it is wrong to say that the total income of the petitioner husband is only Rs. 1,200/- per month. It is contended that as part time job he is getting Rs. 1,200/- per month from a departmental store and he is also working at his shop. It is contended that even in the examination-in-chief, the petitioner-husband has admitted this fact that he is getting this sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month for doing part time job. It is also argued that in his statement, the petitioner husband has admitted that he had a shop in his house. It is then contended that the learned Judge, Family Court has appreciated the evidence of both the parties and has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner husband has good income and is competent to maintain his wife and children. It is also contended that in case the husband is healthy, sound and is capable to work, it is his duty to maintain his wife and children even if he would not have been earning. For this, that learned Counsel for the non-petitioner wife places reliance on the two decisions of this Court in the matter of Smt. Raghubalal Sharma v. Chandra Prakash Sharma 1987 RLR (1) 996 , and T. Venkateswara Rao (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. T. Sundara Satyanarayana (Died) and Others,

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and examined the entire record. This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the wife and children. From the order impugned in this revision petition it is clear that the learned Judge has discussed the entire evidence in the right perspective. In my view, he has committed no illegality. In my view, the learned Judge has come to the right conclusion that the petitioner husband has deserted and neglected the non-petitioner wife and her two children. The conclusions and finding of the learned Judge, Family Court are well founded. In the same way, the learned Judge, Family Court has come to the right conclusion that the husband petitioner is getting Rs. 1,200/- per month after doing part time job and in addition to it he is also having a shop and is competent to maintain his wife and children. The learned Judge, Family Court has awarded the maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to the non-petitioner wife and Rs. 300/- per month to each child which cannot be said to be excessive and harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the high cost of living. The order impugned in the present revision petition in my opinion is completely legal, requires no interference and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

Consequently, the revision petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed. Office is directed to return the record of the case immediately.