JUDGMENT :

The petitioner who is the husband of Smt. Karuna Devi is aggrieved of the order dated 30th May 2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 145 of 2009.

2. Maintenance Case No. 145 of 2009 which was instituted by Smt. Karuna Devi (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) claiming Rs.8000/-per month for her maintenance was partly allowed to the extent that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda awarded Rs. 6000/-per month for her monthly maintenance.

3. The petitioner has taken a stand that about 4 1/2 bighas of lands are being cultivated by the applicant and she has sufficient income from the said lands to maintain herself. He has further stated on oath that he has been paying Rs.1500/-per month to support his wife.

4. The applicant claimed in her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that her husband solemnized second marriage in the year 1974 and thereafter abandoned her, due to which she has been living life of a destitute. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 145 of 2009, the applicant examined three witnesses – she examined herself as PW1. Her sister Anupma Devi and Nityanand Jha came in the witness box to corroborate her statement in the Court that the husband of the applicant has sufficient income to provide maintenance to his wife but has refused to maintain her.

5. The petitioner examined one Amresh Kumar as OPW1 to set up a plea that the applicant on her own was staying separately from the petitioner along with their son. He reiterated that from cultivation of 4 1/2 bighas lands about 35-40 maunds paddy and 20-25 maunds wheat are produced every year, the sale proceeds of which are sufficient for his wife to maintain herself a dignified life.

6. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda on appreciation of the materials on record has recorded the following findings :

“From careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence of this witness, I find that this witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that petitioner is living at matrimonial home at Reri she has got one son. O.P has got 4 1/2 bigha land at vill. Reri and all crops are being kept by the petitioner. This witness vide cross-examination has stated vide para-12 he has stated that Karuna Devi is the wife of the O.P and vide para-19 & 20 he has stated that O.P is retired teacher and he is getting of Rs.15-16 thousand per month as a pension. Vide para-21 to 23 he has stated that O.P has solemnized another marriage and from her he has got three sons and all are in Govt. service. O.P is living in his own house at Godda.

11. On behalf of the petitioner pension paper of the O.P has been filed which shows that on April, 2012 O.P was getting per month of Rs.12,886/-. On behalf of the O.P pension paper has also filed from which shows that in the month of February, 2016 O.P received pension of Rs.20,201/-.

Therefore having considered the evidence either oral or documentary adduced on behalf of the parties, I find that petitioner is legally wedded wife of the O.P and she has been deserted by the O.P about 42 years ago and solemnized another marriage with Prema Devi. From the documents filed by the O.P himself shows that in the month of February, 2016, he received as a pension of Rs.20,201/-. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, O.P Amar Kant Jha is hereby directed to pay Rs.6000/-per month to the petitioner Karuna Devi from this month and same will be paid by 15th of the subsequent month. O.P is also directed to pay of Rs.40,000/- as cost of litigation which will be paid in eight equal installment by the 15th of the subsequent month. Accordingly the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for maintenance is hereby allowed.”

7. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Principal Judge, Family Court committed serious error in law in awarding maintenance to the wife of the petitioner without recording a finding that his wife was unable to maintain herself.

8. Section 125 of the Code of Crimin