JUDGMENT :

The petitioner who is the applicant in Maintenance Case No. 189 of 2011 has challenged legality of the quantum of maintenance fixed by the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Giridih. By this order her husband has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance for her.

2. The applicant was married to the opposite party on 09.06.2009 and from the wedlock a girl child was born on 04.12.2010. The applicant has alleged that about 2 months after the marriage her husband and his family members started harassing her. On the occasion of Durga Puja she was brutally assaulted by her husband and no one from the family took her for treatment. She informed her parents who got her admitted at Parvati Clinic and thereafter she was referred to Dhanbad for further treatment. When she became pregnant her husband started pressurizing her to abort the pregnancy and when she refused he tortured her in connection to demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and one motorcycle. Finally she was thrown out from her matrimonial home and thereafter her husband has failed to maintain her and the minor daughter. She has claimed that her husband is earning Rs. 35,000/- per month by running a betel shop and he has additional annual income of Rs. 50,000/- from agriculture.

3. The opposite party did not file his reply and accordingly he was debarred from filing his show cause vide order dated 16.11.2011. But, he has laid oral as well as documentary evidence. The applicant has examined herself as P.W 1 and her mother was examined as P.W 2. The mother of the applicant has deposed about harassment and torture inflicted by the opposite party upon her daughter and his failure to maintain his wife and the minor daughter. In the court the applicant has reiterated the allegations levelled by her against the opposite party and stated that she is staying at her parental home and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the minor daughter. The opposite party has also examined five witnesses, however, the learned Family Court Judge referring to the judgment in “Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College” reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555 did not consider the evidences laid by him which were beyond the pleadings and, rightly so, he has looked into only the admitted facts.

4. On the basis of the materials laid before him the Family Court Judge has held that the applicant is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month.

5. The learned Family Court Judge has held, thus:

“9. Heard the ld. Counsels for the both sides and perused the case record. From perusal of records, it transpires that, admittedly the petitioner and the O.P. are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 09.06.2009. It is the petitioner’s case that, she was pressurized to abort her foetus and upon her refusal she was demanded additional dowry and refusal to fulfill the said demand, resulted in infliction of cruelty upon her and ultimately, she was ousted from her matrimonial house. Admittedly, there are several cases pending between the contesting parties herein. As such, the petitioner has sufficient reasons to reside separately from her husband, the O.P. herein.

10. As admittedly, the petitioner is the wife of the O.P., it is the duty of the O.P. to maintain her, if not otherwise prohibited under the law. As held above, the petitioner has sufficient reasons to reside separately from her husband, the O.P. herein. As such the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance form the O.P. 11. Now coming to the quantum of maintenance. I find that the petitioner has not proved the income of the O.P., by any cogent and/or documentary evidence. Nevertheless, in my view, the O.P. may at least be taken to be an Unskilled workman. As per the Jharkhand Minimum Wages Act, the minimum monthly wage o an Unskilled workman is Rs. 6,550/-.”

6. The learned Family Court Judge has decided the amount of main