The court established that the maintenance obligation rests on the husband, who must substantiate claims of the wife's income; otherwise, he is liable for maintenance based on his financial means.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.04.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case No. 83M of 2015, whereby learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife/Gudiya Devi and to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month each to both children viz., Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar towards their maintenance.

2. The factual background of the case is that Gudiya Devi, Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar filed one maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.PC in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui against Bhola Vishwakarma, who is petitioner herein. The petitioners before the Family Court are O.P. No. 2, 3 & 4 herein.

3. As per the maintenance petition, O.P. No. 2/Gudiya Devi is legally wedded wife of the petitioner/Bhola Vishwakarma, as marriage between them was solemnized in the year, 2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, Gudiya Devi joined the matrimonial home of her husband and out of the wedlock, two sons viz., Krishna Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar were born. As per further averment, the applicant-wife was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry and ultimately, she was ousted from the matrimonial home along with her two children and her husband is not maintaining his wife and two minor children.

4. It is also stated that Gudiya Devi has no means to maintain herself and two minor children, whereas her husband/Bhola Vishwakarma has a business of wood and furniture and has landed property, having Rs. 5 lac annual income and hence, the applicant and her minor children had demanded Rs. 15,000/- per month for their maintenance.

5. On notice, the husband/Bhola Vishwakarma appeared before the Family Court and filed his written objection in which he has admitted that Gudiya Devi is his legally wedded wife and both the children are born out of the wedlock. However, he has claimed that the applicants were not entitled to get maintenance, because his wife is not willing to live with him in his matrimonial home. He has also denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torturing therefor.

6. It is also claimed by the husband/Bhola Vishwakarma that the parents of his wife want to keep him as a gharjamai, which is not acceptable to him, leading to matrimonial discord. He has also claimed that his wife is educated and provides tuition and working as a Teacher in a private school and she also works in grill garage of her father, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, whereas he himself is illiterate and has no source of income. He has no landed property or any business. For some time, he had stayed with his wife at his sasural and worked in the factory of her father, but he was not given any payment and hence, he left sasural. He is ready to keep his wife in his matrimonial home and he has filed one matrimonial petition under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , but she has not appeared in the matrimonial proceeding under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT . He has also alleged that his wife has illicit relationship with his brother Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma. He has also filed one matrimonial case for dissolution of marriage with his wife. He has also alleged that his wife has illicit relationship with one Gopal Singh and hence, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

7. During trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicants before the Family Court viz., Gopal Singh as P.W.-1,