Full Judgment
CRR No.2233/2012 Criminal Revision No.2233/2012 17.7.2013 Shri Vijay Shrivastava, counsel for the applicants.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has challenged the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in Misc.
criminal case No.697/2009, whereby a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month was granted to the respondent.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the evidence adduced before the trial Court, it is apparent that the applicant was getting a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from his job.
He did not submit any document to show that he was ousted from that job or he was not doing anything.
Under such circumstances, the amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court appears to be appropriate.
It is not an excessive amount.
The applicant could not prove that the respondent was earning on her own.
If her mother was working as a maid servant to clean the utensils then, the respondent cannot be made liable to do such a work.
The applicant could not prove that the CRR No.2233/2012 respondent was doing some work and earning for herself.
It is apparent that the applicant and the respondent were not blessed by any child in 15 years of their marriage and therefore, a quarrel took place between them.
However, it is apparent from the evidence given by the applicant Kamta Prasad (D.W.1) that the respondent called a Panchayat for compromise but, he did not accept.
If that Panchayat was called by the respondent, it means that her allegations relating to harassment done by the applicant and his family members appear to be correct and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly found that the respondent has a cognate reason not to reside with the applicant.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, there is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the trial Court.
The respondent is the wife of the applicant, who is residing separately due to harassment done by the applicant and his family membeRs.The amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court is not excess and therefore, there is no ground by which the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted.
Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
CRR No.2233/2012 A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra