The court emphasizes that valid reasons for a spouse's separate residence can support maintenance claims, particularly in cases of cruelty and neglect.

O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum to his wife. Marriage is admitted. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was not available in India. There is a dispute as to whether he was employed abroad or was just available abroad. That controversy notwithstanding it is admitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not available in India. The wife contended that she is unable to maintain herself and that she is forced to take a separate residence because of the acts of cruelty on the part of the petitioner herein.

2. Parties went to trial on these contentions. Conflicting evidence was adduced. The learned Judge of the Family Court took the view that the wife has valid reasons for separate residence. The learned Judge then proceeded to fix the quantum of monthly maintenance payable as Rs.1,000/-.

R.P.F.C.No.86/08 2

3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. However, later, he raised a further contention that the finding that the wife is residing separately for valid reasons is not correct and the same warrants interference.

4. There was evidence of the claimant versus evidence of the petitioner. The claimant contended that she was residing separately because of infliction of cruelty against her consequent to demands for money. Moreover, the petitioner was not available in India at the relevant time also. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the evidence which was accepted under another point that there was demands for money and the wife was ill-treated by the husband on account of such demand for money. In any view of the matter, before the learned Magistrate there was only oath against oath and the learned Judge, according to me, was eminently justified in choosing to accept the oral evidence of the wife aged 24 years, who claims that she was residing away from her husband for valid reasons R.P.F.C.No.86/08 3 The petitioner is a 32 year old person who was admittedly not available in India; but was abroad at the relevant time. Though he contended that he was abroad without any employment and was deported to India, he has admitted that he has a driving licence. The learned Judge did not take into account his probable income from his employment abroad; but took the view that, at any rate, a skilled person having driving licence must be able to work to earn his livelihood and is liable to pay Rs.1,000/- to his wife. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the said finding regarding quantum of maintenance payable is also eminently justified and does not, at any rate, warrant any interference. The fact that the petitioner consequent to his refusal to pay any amount is now undergoing imprisonment is no reason to admit this revision petition.

5. Thus, I find no worthwhile contention for consideration on which this revision petition deserves admission.

This revision petition is accordingly dismissed inlimini.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr R.P.F.C.No.86/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.86/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No.

ORDER

11/02/2008