P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned order dated 6th of March, 2017, passed by Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court') in Criminal Original Case No.386/2015. By the order impugned, learned trial Court has awarded maintenance to respondent No.2 to the tune of 5,000/- per month from the date of application.
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-wife laid an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned trial Court stating therein that she entered into matrimony with petitioner on 18th of June, 1998 and out of the wedlock son, Gyandeep Malik, was born. It is also pleaded in the application that at present, her son is living with the petitioner. While attributing serious atrocities to the petitioner and his other members of family for demand of dowry, respondent has stated in the application that she was ousted from the matrimonial home. The application further unfurls that despite intervention by the community members, all efforts for re-conciliation failed and the unabated cruelty and demand for dowry by petitioner and his other members of family took a serious turn and she was ousted from matrimonial home on 24th of June, 2014. Respondent specifically pleaded in the application that she has no source of livelihood and is living in destitute, therefore, petitioner may be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month besides litigation expenses. For quantifying the amount of maintenance, respondent has estimated the monthly income of petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,58,000/-.
(3.) The application is contested by petitioner and reply is filed denying all the allegations. As per version of the petitioner, figures about his monthly income are projected with embellished version inasmuch as he is simply working as Homeguard and hardly earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. While refuting the allegation that respondent was ousted from the matrimonial home, the petitioner has averred in the return that she left matrimonial home at her own volition leaving behind even minor son. With these pleadings, petitioner has prayed for rejection of the application for maintenance.;