IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No. 895 of 2016

-------

Suresh Yadav son of Mahavir Yadav, resident of village Asnabad,

Jhumaritelaiya, P.O. & P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma.

… Petitioner

Versus

Sunita Devi wife of Suresh Yadav, D/W. Vishnu Deo Yadav,

resident of village Asnabad, P.S. & P.O. Koderma, District

Koderma at present residing at village Puto, P.S. & P.O. Koderma,

District Koderma

… Opposite Parties

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

-------

For the Petitioner

: Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sahil, Advocate

-------

03/24.01.2020

The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated

04.06.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 17 of 2014 by which

he has been directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to his wife.

2.

Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the learned Judge, Family Court without

ascertaining income and other liabilities of the petitioner has

granted maintenance of Rs.5000/- for his wife which is excessive

and onerous to the petitioner.

3.

The marriage between the parties is not disputed by

the petitioner. The petitioner was married to the applicant no. 1

in the year 1993 and from the wedlock a son has been born who

was minor at the time when the application under section 125 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. In Maintenance Case

No. 17 of 2014 his wife has examined four witnesses and the

petitioner has also examined four witnesses. The petitioner's wife

who has examined herself as A.W.3 has spoken about her

marriage, demand of Rs.1 Lac by her husband and cruelty

inflicted upon her by him. She has stated that her husband is

working as Mechanic at Delhi and earning Rs. 25000/- per

month. She has also claimed that he has monthly rental income

of Rs.30,000/- from a house in addition to Rs. 1 Lac per year

2

from the agricultural produce. Her father, brother and son all

have spoken about demand of dowry by the petitioner and his

earnings.

4.

The petitioner, however, has claimed that he is

working as Night-Guard at Jhumaritelaiya and earns only

Rs.2500/- per month whereas his son Sonu Kumar is working

with Mithila Motors and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.

The father of the petitioner has also stated that his son is

working as a Night-Guard whereas his grandson is working with

Mithila Motors and earning salary of Rs.15000/- per month. The

other witnesses examined by the petitioner have also spoken on

the same lines.

5.

On the basis of the materials laid before him, the

learned Judge, Family Court has held that after upon attaining

majority on 13.10.2013, the applicant no. 2 is not entitled for

maintenance. On income of the petitioner, the learned Judge has

observed as under :

“So far the quantum of maintenance allowance is

concerned, there is no any document to show that what is the

vocation of the opposite party at present and what is the exact

income therefrom. But from the perusal of show-cause filed

on behalf of the opposite party and also his evidence it is

crystal clear that he himself has admitted that earlier he was

working in Delhi in Shyam Packaging and was earning a

substantial amount. Admittedly he is a technician i.e. a skilled

person and it can be safely presumed that he can earn

substantial sum from the said technical knowledge. It is too

hard to believe that he will work as a Night Guard as alleged

by him that too on a paltry sum of Rs. 2500/- per month. Apart

from that it is admitted that the opposite party is the lone son

of his father who has a house in the urban area. It has been

admitted and there is ample evidence on the record on the

basis of which it can be said that the opposite party has some

income also from the cultivation.”

6.

Th