Despite waiting for some time no one has turned up on behalf of the petitioner. On 01.07.2022 when the matter was taken up for consideration a
prayer for pass over was made on behalf of the petitioner which was granted by this court. Again on 05.07.2022 the matter was passed over as no
one appeared on call on behalf of the petitioner. This court is, therefore reasons to believe that despite knowledge of the listing of the matter attempts
are being taken to somehow drag the case. Since this is a case of the year 2018, this Court deems it fit and proper to consider this application on the
basis of the materials available on the record.
The revision application is directed against the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chapra (Saran) in
Maintenance Case No. 88(M) of 2012 by which the learned court was pleased to allow the Maintenance application dated 04.07.2012 filed by the
O.P. No. 2 & 3 Smt. Sheela Sharma and Ayush Kumar @ Om against their husband and father (this petitioner) under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant
of maintenance allowance.
It appears on perusal of the impugned judgment that the marriage between the petitioner and the applicant -wife is not in dispute. The petitioner and
the applicant- wife had a son out of their wedlock. At the time when the application for maintenance was being considered by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court the son was minor aged about six years only. The applicant â€" wife in support of her claim adduced evidences. She examined
herself as P.W.1 and to support her case three other witnesses namely, Champa Devi (P.W.2), Lagandeo Sharma (P.W.3) and Rajendra Sharma
(P.W.4) were examined. On her behalf certificate issued by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Raj, Daudpur saying that the applicant â€" wife is
unemployed has been proved as Exhibit ‘1’. She has proved the medical certificate of her minor son and the receipts of the tuition fee of the
said minor son as Exhibit ‘2’ and Exhibit ‘3’ to ‘3/7’ respectively.
On behalf of the husband â€" opposite party three witnesses were examined. He examined himself as O.P.W.1. Two other witnesses namely,
Safayat Ali and Sirajuddin Ansari have been examined as O.P.W.2 and O.P.W.3 respectively. On his behalf a visiting card of sewing centre and a
receipt of sewing centre have been brought on record as Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘A/1’ respectively. O.P. No. 1 has brought on record
the certified copies of order-sheets of maintenance case no. 88/2012 and certified copy of order dated 24.08.2012 of Case No. 140/2012. He has also
exhibited certified copy of order-sheets and the certified copy of judgment dated 16.02.2013 of Matrimonial Case No. 1078/2009.
Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has examined the evidences on the record. P.W.1 has come out with a case that her marriage was performed
with the opposite party on 20.05.2004 and presently she is living in her paternal home along with her minor son. It is her case that after her marriage
she went to her in-laws place but there was a demand of dowry and on non-fulfillment of the said demand she was tortured by the opposite party and
his family members and later on she was ousted from the matrimonial house after depriving of her valuable ornaments and cloths in the month of
October 2009. She has deposed that she had filed a criminal case against her husband but in the said case the husband agreed to keep the applicant
â€" wife with full dignity and a compromise was filed. Based on that compromise the criminal case was dropped and being emboldened by that the
husband left the applicant â€" wife and her son in her paternal home and did not become ready to maintain their livelihood. She has stated that she is a
Pardanasin lady and is unemployed whereas the opposite party is a government teacher in ITI College, Bathua, P.S. - Mirjapur, District â€" Mirjapur
(U.P.), and he has been getting salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month, he has other source of income in form of agriculture proceeds from which he earns
at least a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per annum.
The learned Principal Judge has while examining the evidence of the husband â€" opposite party noticed that he took a plea that his salary is Rs.
18,400/- per month and admitted that he had performed a second marriage after obtaining a decree of divorce from the applicant â€" wife and has
been living in a rental house at Mirjapur. Although he claimed that the wife is earning Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month but the learned Family
Judge was not convinced with the kind of materials brought on record by O.P. No. 1 to show that his wife was running a sewing centre. It was found
that the opposite party had filed a divorce case in which an ex parte decree of divorce has been obtained and the said order has been challenged
before the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad. In the later part of the order, it has come that the opposite party has admitted his salary of Rs.
32,000/- per month. The other two witnesses brought by the O.P. No. 1 have also failed to give any evidence on the point of employment of the wife
of the petitioner.
To assail the impugned judgment the petitioner raised certain grounds. Most of the grounds are only ornamental in nature. The main ground taken to
assail the impugned judgment is that the wife of the husband was herself unwilling to live with the him and because of that the compromise failed. One
of the grounds is that the learned court below has ignored the material evidence available on the record regarding the earning of O.P. No. 2. The
petitioner has admitted in one of the grounds that he is still ready to get admitted his son in a prestigious institution and is ready to bear the entire
expenses i.e. education, hostel charges, tuition fee etc.
This Court has carefully considered the grounds raised by the petitioner on the face of the materials available on the record. This Court finds that on
the point of employment of his wife he had brought on record only a visiting card and a receipt of a sewing centre which cannot be said to be reliable
piece of evidence to show that the applicant â€" wife is running a sewing centre and is having independent income sufficient to maintain herself. The
applicant â€" wife has on the other hand brought on record the certificate issued by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat showing that she has no
other source of income and she is totally dependent upon the income of her parents.
This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner has entered into a second marriage. He is well placed in life on financial front and has even desired to
pay the entire expenses of his minor son. His income on which the finding has been recorded by the learned Principal Judge is not in dispute. Since the
date of passing of the impugned judgment his salary must have increased by now.
Under these circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra has passed a very
well reasoned judgment discussing all aspects of the matter and sitting in it’s revisional jurisdiction this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment so as to interfere with the same.
By filing an interlocutory application the petitioner has informed this Court that by virtue of the office order dated 29.06.2019 issued by the Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute, Mirzapur, a monthly deduction of Rs. 26,000/- is being made from the salary of the petitioner and the same is
being remitted to the opposite party towards payment of the current maintenance as well as installments of the arrears of maintenance since June,
2019. Although, he claims that he is getting Rs. 38,000/- as salary but has not enclosed with the records his salary slip even as to prima-facie satisfy
this Court with his averment in the interlocutory application.
Moreover, this Court is satisfied that if his wife and minor son can live with a sum of Rs. 13,000/- per month only why the petitioner cannot sustain
himself with an amount which would be even as per his own averments double of the amount available to his wife and the minor son. After all he is
liable to ensure that his wife and minor son live in the same status in which he is living. He has also to take care of his own words that he is ready to
bear all educational expenses of his minor son.
This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the revisional application. The revisional application with the interlocutory application are hereby dismissed.
The employer of the petitioner shall continue to deduct the amount as per the office order stated hereinabove and while making payment of the arrears
of maintenance. If the petitioner produces any proof of payment by him of any amount to his wife and minor son in terms of the order of payment of
ad-interim maintenance and thereafter in terms of the impugned judgment, to that extent he may claim adjustments against the arrears of maintenance
which will be allowed to him.
This application stands disposed off accordingly.
