- (1.) AJAI Kumar Singh, J. The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist/husband against the order dated 12. 12. 2005 passed by Sri R. K. Gupta, Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 268 of 2003 (Shimla Gond v. Sanjeev Kumar) by which the learned Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh allowed the application of opposite party No. 2 under section 125 Cr. P. C, granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/-per month to opposite party No. 2.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that opposite party No. 2 (wife) filed an application under section 125 Cr. P. C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh for granting the maintenance which was registered as Case No. 268 of 2003, It has been alleged by opposite party No. 2, in the said application that after marriage she lived with her husband-revisionist only for 7 days and because her husband was not happy with the dowry given to him in the marriage, he used to harass her by making demand of motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-cash by way of dowry. On repeated request parents of opposite party No. 2, the revisionist took her to his house but again started harassing and assaulting her and on 17. 3. 2003 she has been turned out from the house by the revisionist after assaulting her. It has been further alleged by opposite party No. 2 in her application under section 125 Cr. P. C. that her father is maintaining her after doing the job of labour work and her condition has become pitiable and it is not possible to maintain herself. It has also been alleged that the revisionist was running a shop and is earning about Rs, 10,000/- per month. It has been further alleged that opposite party No. 2 is an illiterate lady and is not capable to maintain herself. The revisionist filed an objection against the said application under section 125 Cr. P. C. alleging that opposite party No. 2 is a patient of epilepsy and she could not be cured even after the extensive treatment and she is also indulging in insulting and misbehaving with his parents. It has alsp been alleged that opposite party No. 2 has gone to her parental house alongwith her brother and did not come back inspite of repeated requests. It has also been alleged that Suit No. 12 of 2001 has been filed by the revisionist-husband against opposite party No. 2-wife for divorce which was decreed exparte on 18. 10. 2001 and the revisionist has also solemnized second marriage. It has also been alleged that the revisionist is not earning much and is unable to maintain opposite party No. 2. Learned Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh after considering evidence on record and the allegations made in the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. and the objection thereto reached to the conclusion that opposite party No. 2 has. not re-married after divorce and looking to the income of the revisionist of Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month it is just and proper that Rs. 1000/- per month be awarded by way of maintenance to opposite party No. 2.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Ranjit Asthana, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 Sri Narendra Kumar and learned A. G. A. and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the revisionist during the course of argument admitted that though a divorcee wife is entitled to maintenance till she remarries but in the present case amount of Rs. 1000/- fixed as maintenance is excessive and has been fixed in an arbitrary manner and on this ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It has further been contended that the revisionist is a labour and is not able to bear Rs. 1000/- per month which fact has been ignored by the learned Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh.;