AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.
This revision is directed against the order dated 16.03.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 175 of 2008, whereby said court has directed that Respondent No. 2 (husband of the revisionist No. 1) shall pay maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month to his wife.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that revisionist No. 1 Smt. Sushma got married to Respondent No. 2 Bhagwat Kumar Aagri on 7th of March, 2007, in district Nainital. A daughter was born out of the wedlock on 19.06.2008. However, thereafter the relations between the parties to matrimony got soured. Revisionist No. 1 Sushma moved an application u/s 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter Prachi. The Respondent No. 2 contested the application and denied the allegations that he had made any demand of dowry or harassed his wife or that he neglected to maintain his wife and daughter. He further pleaded that he is an unemployed youth. The trial court recorded the evidence and found that the Respondent No. 2 Bhagwat Kumar Aagri has neglected to maintain his wife, and considering the economic status of the parties, directed him to pay maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month to his wife.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist pleaded before this Court that the trial court has erred in law in not directing the Respondent No. 2 to pay maintenance to the minor daughter living with revisionist No. 1.
This fact is not disputed between the parties that revisionist No. 2 Prachi is daughter of Respondent No. 2 and revisionist No. 1, who is living with her mother. She is aged hardly 3 years. Under the law, the father (Respondent No. 2) is bound to maintain his minor daughter. It is nowhere stated that Respondent No. 2 has paid any thing to maintain his minor daughter. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted before this Court that Respondent No. 2 is an unemployed person and has no means to pay.
However, merely for the reason that the father (Respondent No. 2) is unemployed youth, his little daughter cannot be left to starve. He has to maintain his daughter. Keeping in mind the economic status of the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thinks it just and proper to direct the Respondent No. 2 to pay maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to his minor daughter in addition to what he is directed to pay to his wife, to meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the revision is disposed of, without disturbing the amount of @ Rs. 800/- per month directed to be paid by the Respondent No. 2 to his wife by the trial court, with further direction that he (Respondent No. 2) shall further pay @ Rs. 500/- per month to his daughter Prachi, living with the mother (revisionist No. 1), from the date the amount of maintenance is directed to be paid by the trial court to Smt. Sushma (wife of Respondent No. 2) i.e. 16.03.2010. (In all Rs. 1300/- shall be paid by Respondent No. 2 to his wife and daughter from 16.03.2010).