A spouse who willfully deserts the other is not entitled to maintenance, especially if they have independent income and the other spouse has remarried.

JUDGMENT :

Ambuj Nath, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 20.05.2011, passed by Sri Sanjay Prasad learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, (As his Lordship was then), in Maintenance Case No. 90 of 2006 filed by the opposite party, namely Salomi Tigga, whereby and wherein, the Principal Judge Family Court, Ranchi directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2500/- per month by way of maintenance to the opposite party along with the arrear amount from 20.05.2011 within 3 months from the date of passing of the order.

3. The opposite party no. 2 Salomi Tigga has claimed to be wife of the petitioner. She has stated that their marriage was solemnized on 22.02.1970. There were two children out of the wedlock, a son namely Prakash Tigga and a daughter namely Dawlin Tigga. The petitioner was working as a registration clerk S-5 grade in Ispat Hospital Mecon Township having monthly salary of Rs.18000/-. Since last three years i.e., since 2003 the opposite party no. 2 was residing separately from the petitioner with her children. she came to know that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with a girl who was presently residing with him in quarter number C-118, Shyamali Colony, Mecon. She has claimed a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioner.

4. The petitioner appeared on notice and has filed contesting show cause. The marriage between the parties have not been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence and their marriage was not solemnized as per the tribal customary law. It has been pleaded that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 was void-ab-initio. It has also been pleaded that the opposite party no. 2 subsequently eloped with one Meghwa Munda and started living with him as wife. After her elopement in the year 1990, when the whereabouts of the opposite party no. 2 was not known to the petitioner, he presumed that either she has died or she has left his company forever and subsequently he solemnized marriage with one Neoran Tirkey in the year 1990. From this wedlock he has two daughters and one son. It has further been pleaded that the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.6000/- and not Rs.18000/- as claimed by the opposite party no. 2. It was further pleaded after the death of Meghwa Munda the opposite party no. 2 started haunting the petitioner. It has further been pleaded that the opposite party no. 2 was employed in Bharat spun Pipe, Lalpur Ranchi having a monthly income of Rs.3000/-. Daughter of the opposite party no. 2 was also working. On these grounds, it was prayed that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 was not liable to be maintained and was liable to be dismissed.

5. In order to prove its case both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, the learned Principal Judge, family court, Ranchi allowed the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2500/- along with arrears from 03.08.2006.

6. From the perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses examined by the opposite party no. 2 It transpires that the opposite party no. 2 Salomi Tigga has been examined as P.W.1. She has reiterated her case as made out in the petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she was married to the petitioner on 22.02.1970 and there are two children out of the wedlock. She has stated that the petitioner was employed in Mecon Ranchi as a registration clerk having monthly salary of Rs.18000/-. She has proved her marriage certificate with the petitioner which has been marked as Ext.-1. She has further proved the baptism certificate of her son which is Ext.-2 and birth certificate of her daughter, which is the Ext.-2/1. She has claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from the petitione