The duty of a husband to provide maintenance to the wife and minor child based on his qualifications and potential earnings, despite his claim of being jobless and having remarried.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2. He is aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, family Court, Ranchi.

2. In Original Maintenance Case No. 73 of 2010 which was instituted on the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicants, the learned Family Court Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2000/- per month for minor child.

3. At the time the maintenance case was filed the son of the petitioner was aged about 2 ½ years. The wife of the petitioner had lodged a criminal case against him on the allegation that her husband and family members were harassing and torturing her.

4. In the judgment dated 04.03.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 73 of 2010, the learned Family Court Judge has held as under:

"18. O.P is sufficiently qualified person. He has rendered his service at four different places. He has done Hotel Management and he has put his service in Apollo Hospital, two important Hotels of this town and one Prestigious Engineering College of this town. It is said that his monthly earning is approximately Rs. 20,000/-. O.P has not made it clear what he is doing these days. He has simply slated that he is jobless and his this plea cannot be admitted to be true keeping in view his qualification. The person who has such qualification can easily earn Rs. 15 to 20 thousand per month by doing any type of job. Certainly, he has solemnised another marriage and he has liabili of 3rd wife also. But certainly the applicants are also his liability and he is duty bound to give maintenance to them.

19. In the circumstances, the maintenance case brought by the applicants succeeds and it is hereby ordered that the O.P. will give Rs. 4.000/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 2.000/- per month to the applicant no. 2 total Rs. 6.000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of this case. The O.P is further directed to pay the maintenance amount on or before 10th calendar day of succeeding month and clear the arrears of maintenance amount within 6 (six) months from the date of this order. Accordingly the present case is hereby allowed on contest."

5. After so many adjournments when this matter came up on the Board before me on 05.02.2021, the following order was passed:

"No one appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned APP appears for the State.

O.P Nos. 2 and 3 are represented through Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, the learned counsel.

Post this matter on 26.02.2021 under the heading ‘Final Disposal'.”

6. Today, Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, the learned counsel appears and states that she has led a fresh vakalatnama in this case.

7. Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, the learned counsel who appears for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes among themselves.

8. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, the learned counsel also slates that she has received instruction from the petitioner to withdraw this criminal revision petition.

9. In view of the statements made by the learned counsels for the parties, Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.

10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through “FAX”.