IMPORTANT POINT
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment of maintenance dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Court of Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court, at Giridih passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 (u/s 125 Cr.P.C.), by which the learned Addl. Principal Judge has allowed the Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2017 by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand only) per month to Opposite Party No. 2-wife-Renu Devi & Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to his minor son O.P. No.3 Krish Kumar @ Gullu till he attains the age of majority with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 10.08.2017.

2. The case of the wife-Opposite Party No.2, in brief, is that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 according to Hindu rites and Customs and after marriage, the O.P. No.2 started living at her matrimonial house at Saria, where she lived well only for a period of one year. Meanwhile, the couple was blessed with a son-O.P. No. 3 namely, Krish Kumar. It has been stated that the petitioner and his family members started demanding a cash of Rs.2.00 Lacs and a motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, the O.P. No. 2 was being tortured mentally and physically by the petitioner and his family members and they tried to kill her. The O.P. No. 2 informed her parents about the torture, then her parents went to her matrimonial house and requested not to torture the O.P. No. 2, but they continued to torture her cruelly and harass in all respects. It has further been stated that on 09.03.2017, the O.P. No.2 was brutally assaulted by the petitioner and his family members and after snatching her all ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000/-, she was driven out from her matrimonial house with her minor son and she anyhow came to her parental house and since then she is residing at her parental house. The petitioner did not show any intention to take back the O.P. No. 2 and her minor, inspite of several repeated request made by the parents of the O.P. No. 2 as well as by the Caste-Community people of Sahu Samaj, Giridih. The O.P. No. 2 and her minor son are unable to maintain themselves having no source of income for their livelihood and they are on the verge of starvation. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a businessman and runs a wholesale business of Tobacco at Saria and earns Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lac) per month and besides this, he has other source of income also and he has got sufficient means for maintaining the Opposite Parties but the petitioner willfully refused to do that and neglected to maintain his wife and minor son. The O.P. No. 2 claimed Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) per month for herself and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) per month for her son, Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) in total per month as maintenance, against petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner, as per the show cause, is that the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It has been admitted that the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 are husband and wife and the couple has been blessed with one son. It has been stated that the O.P. No. 2 lived well at her Sasural only for a period of one year, but the O.P. No.2 with her son has left the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members never demanded any dowry and never assaulted her. Besides this, the O.P. No.2 filed this Original Maintenance Case as well as a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and his family members at the instance of her parents and enemies of the petitioner.

It has further been stated that the petitioner had filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing O.S. No. 200/2017 on 08.08.2017 against the O.P. No. 2-Renu Devi, when the parents and O.P. No.2 came to k