- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 05.05.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Mr. Govind Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondent-wife did not have any sufficient reason for leaving the matrimonial home. THErefore, she is disentitled from claiming any maintenance. Secondly, since the petitioner is an unemployed youth, the payment of Rs.1,000/- per month, is too high a liability to be imposed upon him. THErefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that according to the respondent-wife, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on the ground that she had produced two daughters and was unable to produce a son. Since the petitioner and his family members insisted that she should produce a son, and since she was unable to produce a male child, she was subjected to physical assault. Thus, she had no other option, but to leave the matrimonial home. This testimony of the respondent-wife has not been shattered in the cross-examination. Hence, the respondent-wife had sufficient cause for leaving her matrimonial home. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable. As far as paying capacity of the petitioner is concerned, the learned Judge has clearly noticed the fact that the petitioner's family owns about fifty bighas of land. Therefore, the amount of income generated from the agricultural activity is about Rs.6,000/- per month. The respondent-wife has also produced the revenue records to prove the fact that the petitioner was owning the land along with his father. Therefore, the assessment made by the learned Judge that the petitioner would be earning about Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be faulted. On the other hand, the petitioner has not been able to prove the fact that the respondent-wife was working as a labouror and was earning Rs.100/- to Rs.125/- per day. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in accepting the testimony of the respondent-wife. Since the petitioner was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month, the direction to pay Rs.1,000/- per month is not unreasonable. Thus, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;