Judgment:
1 M.
Cr.C.No.5206/12.
13.3.2013 .
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijit Bhomik, learned counsel for respondent No.1 &2.
Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned P.L.for the respondent No.3/ State.
The record of both the Courts below have been received in compliance of earlier order.
Although this matter is listed today for admission and consideration of stay application but looking to the question involved in this petition instead to hear the same on admission with the consent of the parties the same is taken up for final disposal.
Heard.
ORDER
(ORAL) The petitioner / husband has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the order dated 7.2.2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai District Sagar in Criminal Revision No.250/2011 affirming the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by JMFC Beena in MJ.No.444/10, whereby allowing the application of the respondent No.2 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1,500/- p.m.to respondent No.1 while Rs.500/- p.m.to respondent No.2 through respondent No.1.
The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the record of the Courts below argued that the Courts below have failed to consider the factum regarding income of the petitioner.
As such the petitioner is working in a private shop out of which he is getting Rs.2,500/- p.m.and he is not in a position to pay the aforesaid sum 2 to the respondents No.1 and 2 but without considering such aspect, he has been directed to pay the sum at higher side.
In continuation it was also argued that respondent No.1 is working as contractual teacher in some public educational institution, out of which she is getting the salary by which she could maintain herself as well as the child.
Beside this, by referring the letter dated 16.8.2012 issued with the signature of the In-charge Principal Kendriya Vidhyalay ITBP, Shivpuri he argued that not a days the respondent No.1 is getting Rs.170/- per period and subject to availability of work maximum five periods are allowed to her.
In such premises also the impugned order requires interference and firstly prayed for setting aside the same and in alternate he prayed to reduce the reasonable sum from awarded sum Rs.2,000/- p.m.by admitting and allowing this petition.
On the other hand by responding the aforesaid arguments counsel of the respondents No.1 and 2 by justifying the impugned orders said that the approach of the Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence and existing legal position, do not require any interference at this stage either for setting aside the impugned order or reducing the awarded sum.
So far the certificate of Kendriya Vidhyalay ITBP, Shivpuri is concerned, he said that earlier respondent No.1 was working at Beena and not a days are also working at Beena, hence such certificate does not help to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the record of the Courts below and the papers placed on record so also the impugned ordeRs.3 It is settled proposition of law that on account of lesser income or insufficient means the husband like petitioner could not be escaped from his liability to maintain his wife and son.
In such premises, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed under the inherent power of this Court enumerated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Apart the above, father being natural guardian of son is bound to maintain his child and he could not be escaped from his liability to maintain his son on the ground that mother of the child is an earning member or she is earning sufficient sum to maintain such child.
In addition to aforesaid, in the available circumstances, it is also observed that if the wife is not earning that much sum, which is sufficient for her livelihood according to the status of her husband then in that circumstance also in addition to the income of herself she may claim the maintenance from her husband.
It is apparent from the record that respondent No.1 is working in an educational institution on contractual basis she is being paid Rs.100/- per period up to three periods in a day and no payment is being made for non-working days.
Keeping in view the price index of food stuff, cosmetic iteMs.clothes, medicine etc in the market the income of the respondent No.1 from the above mentioned educational institution could not be said to be sufficient for livelihood of herself and her child also.
It is apparent from the order impugned that after taking into consideration such aspect the impugned order has been passed by the subordinate Court, so in such premises also the impugned order does not require any consideration even for reducing the quantum of sum awarded by the Courts below.
4 So far the aforesaid certificate dated 10.9.2012 issued with the signature of In-charge Principal Kendriya Vidhyalay, Shivpuri is concerned, it is suffice to say that such certificate was neither produced before the trial Court not taking into consideration while passing the impugned ordeRs.Hence, such certificate could not be considered at the fiRs.instance in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
However, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of such certificate the petitioner is extended a liberty to file appropriate application before the appropriate forum and such authority may consider the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.
Besides the aforesaid in view of settled proposition of law the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the question of difficulties of the respondent No.1 and 2, could not be entertained under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
by reconsidering the available evidence.
Even otherwise in the lack of any legal question, this petition being filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
appears to be a second revision after dismissing fiRs.by the subordinate revisional Court, hence the same could not be entertained for adjudication on merits under the garb of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In the aforesaid premises, I have not found any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order impugned passed by the Courts below.
Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.C.C.
as per rules.
(U.
C.Maheshwari) Judge k