Judgment:
CRR No.16/2013 Criminal Revision No.16/2013 13.3.2013 Shri Atulanand Awasthy, counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tikamgarh in Misc.
criminal case No.75/2012, whereby a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- was granted to the wife and daughter of the applicant respectively.
The respondent No.1 has filed an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.on behalf of both the respondents before the trial court that her marriage took place with the applicant 18 to 19 years back.
Two children were born to the respondent No.1.
The applicant was in habit to assault the respondent No.1 after consuming liquor etc.Thereafter, she was ousted from the house.
The applicant kept his son with him, whereas she was thrown away with her daughter.
It was also pleaded that the applicant tried to pour some kerosene upon the respondent No.1 and set her on fire.
However, she could save herself.
Her signatures were taken on blank papers by the applicant.
The respondent has submitted that the CRR No.16/2013 applicant had 11 to 12 acres of land and his earning was of more than 5 lacs per annum.
Similarly, by selling milk etc., he was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per annum.
Under such circumstances, the respondents No.1 and 2 pray for the maintenance.
The applicant in his reply has denied the entire allegations made.
However, no special pleading was made by the applicant in his reply.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has passed the impugned order.
The respondent No.1 Kaliya (P.W.1) and Kallu Bunkar (P.W.2) have stated that the behaviour of the applicant was not good with the respondent No.1.
He was in habit to assault the respondent No.1 and ultimately, she was ousted.
No much suggestions were given to the witness Kaliya in the cross-examination.
It is apparent that the applicant kept his son with him but, ousted his wife and daughter.
Under such circumstances, the evidence given by the respondent No.1 Kaliya can be accepted and it appears that she has appropriate reason, not to reside with the applicant.
The respondent No.1 Kaliya and her daughter are living with the parents of the respondent Kaliya.
However, their expenditure may be assessed in a CRR No.16/2013 proper manner.
The trial Court has properly assessed their expenditure to be Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively.
There is no illegality visible in that assessment.
So far as the income of the applicant is concerned, he has accepted that his father had 5 to 7 acres of agriculture land.
Though he refused that he has any cattle but, he did not say that he is doing any other work like job of a labour etc.Under such circumstances, it appears that he is working in the fields of his father and therefore, he is entitled to get share in the crops.
Under such circumstances, his monthly income is more than Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, if 50% of his income is given to the respondents then, it cannot be said that maintenance amount granted by the trial Court is excessive.
The applicant is able to pay that amount.
Under such circumstances, there is no reason visible, so that any interference can be done in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, by way of a revision.
No illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tikamgarh.
The present revision filed by the applicants cannot be accepted.
Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
CRR No.16/2013 A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra