RANCHI, India, Nov. 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 13:
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner.
2. This Cr. Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 09/5/2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 118 of 2022, pursuant to the application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Opposite Party No.2 and by the said judgment, learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sahibganj has been pleased to allow the said application and directed the petitioner to pay of Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposite party No.1 and further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per months to his legitimate minor son being opposite party No.2, w.e.f. dated 13.06.2022 and further directed to payment of maintenance amount will be paid to the opposite parties by the petitioner on or before 10th day of the months and further directed to pay arrear accrued from the date of filing of this case to the date of judgment shall be paid by the petitioner within six months from the date of order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of Mohammadan Law being Matrimonial Case No.207 of 2022 before the Family Court, Bhagalpur. He further submits that in the meantime, the Maintenance Case being 118 of 2022 was filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage was solemnized on 02.12.2020 according to custom and rituals of Muslims and after marriage, both couple started living together and after six months of her marriage, the petitioner and his relatives started subjecting the applicant to cruelty and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 10.05.2022. It is further alleged that opposite Party No.1 gave birth of a male child, who is opposite party No.2. He then submits that it is further alleged that the petitioner is a person of sufficient means and he earns Rs.60,000/- from the business of silk clothes and dull cloth manufacture and sell and he also earn Rs.20,000/- per month from the rent of shop of his factory. In light of these facts, opposite party No.1 prayed to direct the petitioner for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs.3,000/- for maintenance of her minor son. He further submits that the learned Court has been pleased to allow the said application. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is not able to pay the said amount, as it is in higher side. In view of that, he lastly submits that this application may kindly be allowed.
4. The Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that the learned court in deciding the same has appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has found that AW-1, who is the wife has reiterated the fact in her statement that her husband earns earn Rs.60,000/- from the business of silk clothes and dull cloth manufacture and sell and he also earns Rs.20,000/- per month from the rent of shop of his house and workshop. AW-2 has stated in examination-in-chief that he has seen the workshop of his son-in-law, in which 5 to 6 persons were working, although he has not seen the license of workshop. PW-3 has also deposed in para-16 that he has seen the workshop of petitioner, in which 15-20 workers were working there.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqFEGwfEbGvWsbh7XVv5y8Z%2FXsIgfc7Fd723EXCmu%2FstF&caseno=Cr.Rev./656/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010189742024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
