IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Family Court's maintenance order, finding it just and fair based on the husband's financial capacity and the needs of the wife and minor daughter.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners –wife and the minor daughter and the opposite party husband in Cr. Revision No. 876 of 2019 and learned counsel for the petitioner –husband and the opposite party no. 2 and 3 i.e., wife and the minor child in Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2019.

2. Criminal Revision No. 876 of 2019 has been preferred by the wife & minor daughter for enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag vide judgment dated 03.04.2019 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016 whereby the opposite party-husband has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioner no. 1-wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioner no. 2- the minor daughter till her marriage or being capable to earn her livelihood. The aforesaid amount of Rs.2000/- per month (total) shall be received by the petitioner no. 1 wife for maintaining herself and petitioner no. 2.

3. Criminal Revision No. 803 of 2019 has been preferred by the petitioner-husband against the said award of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to be paid to be opposite party no. 2 and 3 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag.

4. It appears that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and both of them have challenged the same order of maintenance dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned court below in Original Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2016, one by the husband showing his inability to pay the maintenance amount and another by the wife and the minor daughter for enhancement of the maintenance amount claiming the amount to be a meagre amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Therefore, this Court after hearing both the parties dispose off both the aforesaid criminal revisions by this common order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 and 2 i.e., wife and daughter in Cr. Revision No. 876 of 2019 has submitted that the instant criminal revision has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag did not appreciate the evidences and has awarded a very meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month each to the petitioner no. 1 wife and petitioner no. 2 the minor daughter, despite of the fact that opposite party husband has sufficient means to maintain them. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is finding it difficult to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. It has further been submitted that all the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the petitioners during course of trial have supported their case and the opposite party Gopal Mahto (husband of the petitioner no. 1 of Criminal Revision No. 876 of 2019) has sufficient means to pay more maintenance amount but the learned court below did not assess properly the financial capacity of the said Gopal Mahto and therefore, the learned court below has fixed a very small amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance.

6. On the other hand the petitioner husband in Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2019 has denied the maintenance on the ground inter alia that the learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration that petitioner is a Taxi Driver by profession at Delhi and only earns Rs. 10,000/- per months and, therefore, he would not be able to maintain the opposite parties, since, he has to maintain his another daughter Khushboo Kumari and his parents also. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner husband that both the parties got married in the year 1997 and thereafter a female child Khushboo Kumari was born out of the wedlock, which has been admitted by the husband but the birth of the second daughter namely Jyoti Kumari i.e. opposite party no. 3 of Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2019 has been denied by the husband since the wife- opposite party no. 2 left the