Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) BY means of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 6.3.2014, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gonda, in case no. 679 of 2009, whereby the application of opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/ - to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order impugned in the instant petition. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is also admitted that at the time when the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved, the opposite party no. 2 was living separately from the petitioner. The learned court below on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed three questions for disposal of the case. The first question was as to whether the opposite party no. 2 was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and this question was answered in positive on the ground that it was admitted between the parties that they are husband and wife. The second question was, whether the opposite party no. 2 had bonafide reason to live separately. The learned court below on the basis of the evidence found that the opposite party no. 2 had made allegation of illicit relation of her husband. It was the case of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner had illicit relation with his sister -in -law, namely, Smt. Geeta Pandey. The learned Family Judge found that it was sufficient reason for the opposite party no. 2 to live separately. The third question which was framed by the court below was as to whether the opposite party no. 2 was unable to maintain herself and the petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife. This question was also answered in the manner that on the basis of the evidence on record the opposite party no. 2 was jobless and had no income of her own and the petitioner had neglected to maintain his wife -opposite party no. 2.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the entire allegation with regard to illicit relation of the petitioner with his sister -in -law are absolutely false and there was no evidence to this effect. The learned Family Judge, merely on the basis of presumption came to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 had sufficient reason to live separately. It is also a submission on behalf of the petitioner that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is highly excessive looking to the income of the petitioner. It is submitted that in case the petitioner is asked to pay Rs. 5000/ - per month to opposite party no. 2, no sufficient fund would be left for the petitioner to meet out day to day expenses of his life.;