AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 246 wordsN. Dhinakar, C.J.—The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- p.m. as maintenance to his wife and a sum of Rs. 500/- each to his children, totaling a sum of Rs. 2000/- as maintenance u/s 125, Cr PC.
A petition u/s 125, Cr PC was filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner on behalf of his deaf and dumb daughter whose marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 15th November, 1993. In the said petition it was alleged that the petitioner in this revision, after having married his daughter, ill-treated, demanded dowry and later chased her out of the house. The Family Court after accepting the evidence let in by the applicant, Altaf Hussain directed the petitioner to pay maintenance as directed above.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is only a tailor by profession and his only earning is Rs. 1.500/- p.m. the order of maintenance directing him to pay a total sum of Rs. 2000/- p.m. is on the higher side and the said amount can be reduced.
On going through the order I find that the petitioner after chasing his wife out of the house has married for the second time and there is also no material before this Court to show that the petitioner is not affluent enough to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/-p.m. to "his wife and children.
There is no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.