IMPORTANT POINT
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of financial incapacity must be supported by credible evidence; failure to do so can result in the court upholding maintenance orders.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This revision application has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 25.04.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No. 217 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed Rs.10,000/-per month as maintenance to the opposite party-wife and her minor children by the tenth day of every month from the date of filing of the maintenance application. The learned Family Court further directed the husband-petitioner to pay the arrears within three months of the passing of the order.

Brief Facts of the Case

3. The petitioner and the opposite party in the present case are the husband and wife respectively. They were married on 25.05.1997 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. The couple was blessed with four children. It is alleged by the wife-opposite party that her husband and his family started demanding Rs.3,00,000/-in dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the wife was allegedly physically and mentally tortured. There was also a panchayati by local person but the opposite party did not satisfy to them. It is the case of the opposite party that she was ousted from her matrimonial house in the year 2014. She has no source of income whereas her husband earns Rs.50,000/-per month. He also owns 5-7 bighas of land but he refused to maintain his wife and the four minor children. The opposite party filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and prayed for a sum of Rs.25,000/-as monthly maintenance amount for herself and four minor children.

Stand of the Opposite Party-Husband

4. The husband-petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. In his written statement, he contended that it was his wife-opposite party who was neglecting her matrimonial obligations and had deserted him. He further stated that because of the mental harassment meted out to him by the opposite party, he had become unwell and is not able to maintain himself properly. He further expressed his readiness to keep his wife and children with all love and dignity. He submitted that he was doing tailoring work and earns Rs.50,000/ to Rs.60,000/- per year.

Evidences Adduced by the Parties

5. In support of her case, the applicant-wife examined herself as AW-1. She stated in her examination-in-chief that she was married about 24-25 years back with Shambhu Chaudhary. She stayed in her sasural for seven years and thereafter she was ousted from her matrimonial house. She had four children from Shambhu Chaudhary. Shambhu Chaudhary was not maintaining her and the four children. She stated that Shambhu Chaudhary has got monthly income of Rs.50,000/-. He also owns 5-7 bighas of land. She has reiterated her allegation that she was being tortured and beaten by her husband. In her cross-examination, she expressed her desire to live with him if he would be willing to do so. She also stated that her husband has a house.

6. The husband-petitioner deposed in the Family Court. He admitted his marriage with opposite party and further admitted about the birth of four children from the said wedlock. He stated in his examination-in-chief that the father of Veena Devi is a retired Headmaster who is presently Mukhiya of the Village. Veena Devi runs a ration shop and she is running a tea-breakfast shop with the help of her children and in this manner, she is having an income of Rs.50,000/-per month. He tried to persuade his wife to come back but she refused to come. He further made a statement that he was working in a cloth shop at Samastipur and earns Rs.5,000/-per month. He also made statement that he was living in a rented house and he has only 15 dhurs of land in his share. In his cross-examination, he made statement that he was living alone and had not married to any another lady. He further stated that his eldest daug