IMPORTANT POINT
The right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a personal right that can be claimed by legal heirs after the death of the entitled party, and the obligation to pay maintenance is based on the husband's financial capacity and the dependent's needs.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the judgment and order dated 02.01.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharshariff in Matrimonial Case No. 25 (M) of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court has been pleased to direct the husband-petitioner to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/-to the applicant no. 1-O.P. No. 1 and Rs.2,000/-to the applicant no. 2-O.P. No. 2 w.e.f the date of application i.e. 01.04.2010. The applicants in the Family Court are the wife and daughter respectively of the present petitioner.

Brief Facts of the Case

2. The applicants-opposite parties in the Family Court claimed that this petitioner was married to applicant no. 1 in the year 1990 in the month of Baisakh and she went to her matrimonial home where she gave birth to a child who is applicant no. 2-O.P. No. 2. It was alleged that the husband of the applicant no. 1 was demanding a motorcycle and cash, since the demands could not be fulfilled, therefore, the applicant no. 1 along with her minor daughter was thrown out of the matrimonial home. She filed a complaint case bearing No. 260 (C) of 1995 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharshariff. The applicant no. 1 claimed that since her ouster from the matrimonial house, she was residing at Karah Bazar (Naihar) and was facing a lot of trouble in leading her life with the minor daughter.

3. It was further the case of the applicants that the present petitioner was having an income of Rs.40,000/-per month but he was neglecting his wife and minor daughter.

4. Per contra, the case of the husband-petitioner in written statement was that he was never married with applicant no. 1, the applicant no. 1 never came to stay with him in his native place, therefore, there was no question of giving birth to a child out of the wedlock. He further claims that in the Complaint Case No. 260 (C) of 1995, an order of acquittal has been passed on 29.05.2004.

5. The husband-petitioner further denied his income and claimed that applicant no. 1 earns sufficiently from stitching and teaching from private tution. He also claimed that he was mentally ill since 1998 and was under treatment by Dr. K.M. Das for mental disease.

6. The father of applicant no. 1 had stated in his deposition that applicant no. 1 was matriculate and he had married his eldest daughter in the year 1990, therefore, the question of marriage of second daughter in the same year does not arise. The petitioner claimed that he hardly earns Rs.10,000/- per month.

Evidences Adduced by the Parties.

7. On behalf of the applicants, four witnesses deposed and some documents were also exhibited. Mother of applicant no. 1 deposed as AW-1 who has stated that the applicant no. 1 was married to this petitioner in the year 1990 and ‘Ruksadi’ had taken place in the year 1992. She further deposed that in the year 1994 applicant no. 1 had given birth to applicant no. 2. According to this witness, applicant no. 1 was thrown out of the matrimonial home because the demand of motorcycle and cash could not be fulfilled. She has stated that the applicant no. 1 has little educational background whereas her husband (petitioner) is an MBBS Doctor and he is running his own clinic from which he earns Rs.40,000/-per month. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that applicant no. 1 was married to the petitioner in the year 1990 and after her ‘Ruksadi’ in the year 1992, she had stayed in her Sasural for 2-2 and ½ months. She further alleged that the petitioner has already performed second marriage with one Sarita Devi who hails from Begusarai.

8. The AW-2 has deposed that he had got printed the marriage card of applicant no. 1 in the year 1990 at the instance of her father and he has proved the marriage card saying that it is original. AW-3 is a person acquainted with both the parties who has deposed that this petitioner was married with applicant no. 1