Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 776 of 2006 ------- Chandra Kishore Pathak .… Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Kanti Devi W/o Chandra Kishore Pathak 3. Sonu @ Gudia (Minor) ..... Opposite Parties ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioner : : M/s. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate S.N.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : : M/s. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P. ------- 06/ 02.09.2015. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in spite of service of notice upon her.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Maintenance Case No. 26 of 2002 / T.R. No. 754 of 2005, whereby the petitioner was directed to make the payment of Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife opposite party No. 2, and also Rs.400/- per month each to both of his daughters born out of the wedlock. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2005, whereby the revision filed against the said order dated 07.10.2005 has been rejected by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Lohardaga.
3. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below show that the opposite party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of the wedlock two daughters were born. These facts are admitted and not in dispute. There is allegation against the petitioner to have subjected his wife to cruelty and torture and to have turned her out of the matrimonial home. The wife of this petitioner filed the maintenance case claiming that the petitioner had the income of not less than Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture as well as typing institute and accordingly, she prayed for maintenance from her husband.
4. As opposed to this, the case of this petitioner is denial of allegation of subjecting his wife to cruelty and torture and it is stated that he is always ready to keep her and his daughters with full dignity. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was having seizure disorder since the year 1975 itself and as such he had no earning of his own, rather he was himself dependent on his father. There is denial of any income to the petitioner and the petitioner denied the liability to make the payment of any -2- maintenance to his wife and daughters, rather he showed his willingness to keep them.
5. The impugned orders further show that both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The applicant-wife had adduced three witnesses including herself, and had also proved two letters, one written by her husband and the other written by her father-in-law which were also marked as Exhibits. The witnesses, including the victim lady have supported her case of subjecting her to cruelty and torture and have also deposed about the income of the petitioner from typing institute and agriculture, claiming his income to be about Rs.5,000/- per month.
6. On the other hand the petitioner had examined five witnesses including himself and his father. The other witnesses are also the family members of the petitioner and they have stated about the mental illness of the petitioner and they have also stated that the typing institute was closed. These witnesses have also stated that the wife was never subjected to any cruelty or torture rather she had herself left the matrimonial home due to her behaviour.
7. The Court below on the basis of the evidence of both the sides has found that the petitioner is aged about 40 years and he looked as a healthy man. The Court below has also found that the wife has reasonable cause for living away from her husband. The Court below has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month from typing institute and has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and Rs.400/- per month to each of the daughters for their maintenance.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the Court below has not taken into consideration the mental illness of the petitioner due to which the petitioner has no income. Learned counsel also submitted that the Court below has not judged the evidence of the parties in its right perspective and came to the wrong finding that the petitioner had the income of Rs.3000/- per month from typing institute, even though the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have stated that the typing institute was closed. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that the Court below has fixed the quantum of maintenance for the wife and the daughters assessing the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly, there is no -3- illegality in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below.
10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the Court below has discussed the evidence of both the sides in detail and has held on the basis of the evidence on record, that the petitioner had the earning of Rs.3000/- per month from his typing institute. The Court below has also found that the petitioner is a healthy person aged about 40 years and accordingly, he is able to maintain his wife and children. The Court below has also found that the wife has reasonable cause for living away from her husband. On the basis of these findings the Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and also Rs.400/- per month each for the maintenance of both his daughters.
11. In the facts of this case, I do not see any illegality and or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (H.C.Mishra, J.) D.S.