Sarwan Kumar Sao vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Prasad, J.—This Revision application is directed against the order dated 4-9-2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad passed the order allowing the maintaiance of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 in connection with M. P. Case No. 21, 1998.

Short facts giving rise to this revision is that Manju Devi, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for maintaince claiming therein that she was married with the petitioner, Sarwan Kumar Sao, according to Hindu rites and customs about 20 years ago. One daughter and four sons were also born out of their wedlock. The relationship between the husband and wife-were cordially peaceful for about 12 years but later on the petitioner started ill treating and neglecting the wife Opposite Party No. 2 and also his children and thereafter the petitioner driven away the Opposite Party No. 2 and her children from the house, whereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the petition for maintenance. The petitioner also filed show cause in the Court below denying the allegation and claimed that the Opposite Party No. 2 had developed illicit relation with one Manik saw and had eloped with him after taking her children and entire personal belonging including gold. The mother of the petitioner had also filed a criminal case before the A.C.J.M. Koderma, which was registered as Koderma PS case No. 38/1997. It is further alleged that Manju Devi has been residing with the said Manik Saw since 1990 and she had entered into a contract of marriage with Manik Saw and to this effect one affidavit has also been executed on 3-7-1990 before the Notary Public, Bihar Sharif. It is further alleged, that the Opposite Party No. 2 has been running a hotel with the assistance of her mother and her children near the Railway Station and earning substantial income whereas the petitioner is a petty Bhuja Seller earning hardly Rs. 50/- per day and, therefore, the petitioner has no obligation to provide any maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2 Manju Devi.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed error in passing the order and allowed the maintenance excessively as the petitioner is a petty Bhuja Seller, who is earning Rs. 50/- per day only. It is further submitted that actually Manju Devi-Opposite Party No. 2 contracted marriage with one Manik Saw and has been residing with him since 1990 for which affidavit has also been executed. It is further submitted that Manju Devi had already been earning a substantial income by running a hotel, which was not been considered by the Court below and she had eloped with her paramour Manik Saw voluntarily, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party contended before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned as the Court below rightly passed the order allowing the maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2 who has no income for her livelihood as well as she is having five children and their inability is also with the lady Opposite Party No. 2. It is further argued that the whole allegation about residing with Manik Saw is false and fabricated and on this score the Court below discussed the entire matter in detail and the Court below came to a definite conclusion that the Opposite Party No 2 and her three minor children have no sufficient means for their substance and has rightly passed the order allowing the maintenance, which is not excessive.

On perusal, it appears that admittedly the Opposite Party No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and all the children have born out of their wedlock. It is also clear that Manju Devi had filed a criminal case as back as in the year 1997 vide Dhanbad PS Case No. 18 of 1997 registered u/s 494/498A/420 IPC against the petitioner and others. No cogent evidence is coming forward to indicate that Manju Devi actually performed second marriage with Manik Saw. Marriage took place 20 years ago with the petitioner and Manju Devi has been residing separately with minor children of which there is no denial from the side of the petitioner. It will be pitiable that if a person leaves his wife after twenty years of marriage and also neglecting the minor children, when she requires more attention and care in the old age. The wife with minor children cannot be left in dark. The Section 125 Cr. P.C. clearly provides for maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. There is no denial about marriage with the Opposite Party No. 2 who is the legally married wife and, therefore, she is quite entitled for the maintenance from her husband.

The Court below after discussing the entire evidence on record in detail, rightly came in conclusion that the Opposite Party No. 2 is entitled for maintenance and allowing a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife and three minor children which cannot be said to be excessive.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.