R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 22 -2 -2006, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in Case No. 25/2006, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 3500/ - to his wife, Smt. Manprit Kaur, and Rs. 2000/ - to his daughter, Kumari Sohal, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner and Manprit Kaur were married on 14 -8 -1993, according to Hindu rites and customs. From their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter, Kumari Sohal. However, due to persistent physical and mental torture for dowry, the respondent No. l was forced to leave her matrimonial home along with her daughter. Subsequently on 4 -1 -2006, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance from the petitioner. In support of her case, she examined herself and one Nishan Singh as witnesses. She also submitted number of documents. The petitioner, on the other hand, did not examine anyone else, except himself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. P.C. Bhandari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had transferred a plot in the name of respondent No. 1. Subsequently, she had sold the plot and had kept the money with herself. Moreover, she runs a boutique, from which she earns sufficient amount to maintain herself, as well as her child. She is not dependent on the petitioner for maintenance. She has sufficient means of her own. Therefore, she is dis -entitled from claiming maintenance from the petitioner, Furthermore, the learned court below has erred in not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. Although, the petitioner submitted Income Tax return showing that he earns merely Rs. 54,000/ - per year, the learned court has assessed his income on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for respondents, has contended that the petitioner has not been able to establish that respondent No. l has kept the money from the plot she sold. Furthermore, he has not established that she runs a boutique, therefore, she has sufficient means for maintaining herself and her child. Further, the learned court below is justified in assessing the income of petitioner on the basis of his life style. Although, the petitioner claims that he earns merely Rs. 54,000/ - per year, yet he maintains a Honda City car, which he had bought in the year 2005. Furthermore, he is a property dealer. In his cross examination, the petitioner admits that he is a property dealer, although, he is not a colonizer. Thus, the impugned order has been passed after a valid appreciation of evidence.;