The court's decision emphasized the importance of proving divorce in a valid manner and upheld the entitlement of the respondent to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

N.K. Gupta, J.

The applicant has preferred the present revision being aggrieved with the order dated 6.4.2007 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJC No.299/2004 whereby the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- was granted to the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties took place on 5.10.2000. On 9.9.2001 one male child viz. Hamja was born to the respondent. The respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court that she was being harassed for dowry demand and other reasons. After delivery of a son, she was not taken to the house of the applicant for a longer period and thereafter when she was taken again she was sent back. On her complaint a case under Section 498-A of IPC was registered against the applicant. It was submitted in the application that the applicant was a Generator In-charge in United Arab Emirate and earning approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent sought a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance.

3. The applicant in his reply denied all the allegations. On the contrary he has pleaded that the applicant kept his wife with comfort. She was interested that the applicant should reside in the parents' house of the respondent, and therefore in December 2001 she herself left the house of the applicant. Thereafter he moved an application before the Family Court to restore the conjugal rights, but the respondent had lodged a false FIR against the applicant and his family members. Under these circumstances, on 20.6.2005 the applicant gave Talaknama to his wife and intimation was given by registered post. She was not entitled to get any amount of maintenance from the applicant. In alternate it was pleaded that the respondent was a well educated woman, who was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month by teaching the students in English subject.

4. The leaned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court after considered the evidence adduced by the parties has granted maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent.

5. In the present revision, the respondent did not appear before the Court though notice of this revision was served, and therefore ultimately I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. It appears that the applicant did not deny the fact that he was working in UAE and earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, the trial Court has assessed his income on the basis of wages of an unskilled labour by collector rate. A person, who is healthy and not handicapped, then it shall be presumed that he would earn the wages equal to wages of an unskilled labour, and therefore income assessed by the trial Court is correct. Similarly, assessment of amount of maintenance done by the trial Court appears to be correct.

7. It was challenged by the applicant that the respondent had any reason to get maintenance without living with the applicant. It appears that the respondent was shunted out from the house of the applicant in the year 2001 and she had moved an application for maintenance in the year 2004. If the applicant was interested to take the respondent to his house and there was no reason of any cruelty etc., then the applicant would have done some efforts to bring the respondent to his house. Mohd. Anwar Siddiqui (DW-1) has stated that he had moved an application before the Family Court for restoration of conjugal rights, but he has filed so many documents before the trial Court but no such copy is filed to show that he had moved an application. Since he has not made any effort to bring his wife to his house in last three years before filing of maintenance application, the testimony of the respondent Shefta Afroz (PW-1) and her father Mohd. Ahmed (PW-2) appears to be acceptable that on 14.12.2001 the respondent was shunted out from the house of the applicant and thereafter the applicant did not care to maintain his wife or to bring to his house. Hence the trial Court has rightl