IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment dated 15th February, 2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No.454 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the Opposite Party No.2 – Rina Kumari under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay 10,000/- per month as maintenance on 10th day of each succeeding month. It was further ordered that the maintenance amount would be payable from the date of application i.e., from 3rd August, 2019.

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that maintenance application was moved on behalf of the Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Mahato (the Opposite Party No.2 in this case) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband – Dinesh Kumar Mahato (the petitioner in this case) on the averments that she is a legally wedded wife of Dinesh Kumar Mahato resident of Jhabri, P.O., Jhabri, P.S. Silli, District-Ranchi. After her marriage she went to her in-law’s house and lived there peacefully for a week only. After that her husband and her in-laws began to torture her and finally on 28th August, 2015, she was ousted from the matrimonial house and, since, then she had been residing at her parental house having no source of income. It is further averred that she is unable to maintain herself, to the contrary her husband is a government employee and earns Rs.50,000/- per month from salary, Rs.25,000/- per month from agriculture and Rs.20,000/- per month from other sources. Therefore, prayed for the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance.

On behalf of the respondent – husband the written statement was filed on 28th January, 2020, wherein he admitted the date of marriage and averred that the maintenance application is not maintainable in the eyes of law reason being on 22nd August, 2015, it was petitioner (the O.P. No.2 in this case) herself, who left the matrimonial house without rhyme and reason. In spite of several requests made by the respondent – husband, she did not come back to the matrimonial house, rather she misbehaved with him. It is also further averred that he was ready and willing to settle the dispute but the petitioner had denied the same once for all. Lastly, it is also averred that he is still ready and willing to keep her with full dignity.

3. On behalf of the petitioner (Opposite Party No.2 in this case) in oral evidence examined P.W.-1 Rina Mahato, P.W.2 Sukhen Roy and P.W.-3 Dilip Kumar Mahato and in documentary evidence adduced the certified copy of plaint of C.P. Case No.3270 of 2018 as Ext.1, photocopy of letter no.106 dated 4th February, 2020 of Electricity Executive Engineer as Ext.2 and pay slip Ext.3 and for identification, Adhar Card and Pan Card of Balram Singh as Ext. X & X/1 and certified copy of plaint of C.P. Case No.1988 of 2020 as Ext.B for identification.

4. On behalf of the respondent (the petitioner in this case) in oral evidence examined R.W.-1 Dinesh Kumar Mahato.

5. The learned Family Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the respondent (the petitioner herein) was directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 which was to be paid on 10th day of each succeeding month. It was also directed that the said amount was to be paid from the filing of the maintenance application i.e., 3rd August, 2019.

6. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 15th February, 2022, this criminal revision is preferred on behalf of the petitioner – husband on the grounds that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court did not consider the actual income of the petitioner/husband and without taking into account the liability of the petitioner has passed the impugned order. The Opposite Party No.2 (the wife of the petitioner) is graduate and she has been earnin