Surendra Pal Singh vs Smt Sudesh Kumari Pal

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

This revision is directed against the order dated 15.12.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, in Misc. Case No. 50 of 2009, whereby said court has directed the revisionist (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-per month to his wife Sudesh Kumari Pal (respondent).

Brief facts of the case, are that, the revisionist got married to the respondent in the year 1998. He (revisionist) is a driver. The allegation of the respondent in her application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., is that, her husband has neglected to maintain her. She has further pleaded that she is unable to maintained herself. She has also alleged that her husband''s income is Rs. 13,500/- per month.

The revisionist opposed the application and filed the written statement. However, he admitted his marriage with the respondent, and did not deny that he is a driver. However, rest of the pleas were denied by him, and it is pleaded that the respondent is mentally sick. It is also stated that the revisionist earns only Rs. 2,200/- per month.

The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that the revisionist has neglected his wife to maintain her and directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month.

The grounds mentioned in the revision also disclose that the revisionist admits that his wife is mentally retarded. However, that is no ground to deny maintenance to the wife. The revisionist does not deny that he is a driver. From the grounds of the revision it further reveals that revisionist has pleaded that his income is not such which allows him to make payment of Rs. 2,000/-per month to his wife.

Having gone through the impugned order, and other papers on record including the statement of the witnesses which are filed with the affidavit and counter affidavit, this court finds that the trial court has committed no error of law in directing the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-per month to his wife.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 03.03.2011 stands hereby vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 1547 of 2011 also stands disposed of).