MUNESHWAR PRADHAN Vs. RITA PRADHAN, W/O MUNESHWAR PRADHAN
LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-75
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on February 14,2020

Muneshwar Pradhan Appellant
VERSUS
Rita Pradhan, W/O Muneshwar Pradhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar,j. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.09.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.05 of 2016 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and the minor daughter.
(2.) In the proceeding of the maintenance case, the applicant who is the petitioner's wife has examined two witnesses; she has examined herself as P.W.1. The petitioner has also examined three witnesses to resist the claim of his wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 03.07.2014 and from the wedlock a girl child has been born. The petitioner's wife has alleged that at the time of birth of her daughter no one from the family of her husband supported her and they have not borne the hospital expenses. She has further alleged that her husband has failed to maintain her and their minor daughter. She has filed a complaint case against her husband alleging harassment and torture by him. There was a dispute between the parties is evident from the fact that on 22.05.2015 a compromise was arrived at between the parties at Mediation Centre, Chaibasa. The petitioner has pleaded that when he tried to take his wife and child home his wife has refused. In her petition filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner's wife has claimed Rs.6,000/- per month for herself and Rs.4,000/- per month for the minor daughter as maintenance allowance besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost. In her cross-examination she has admitted that she does not know about income of her husband. Her father who has been examined as P.W.2 has stated during cross-examination that he has not seen any document regarding employment of his son-in-law and landed properties owned by him and he has no idea about income of his son-in-law. The petitioner's wife has claimed that he is a petty contractor whereas the witnesses examined by the petitioner have stated that the petitioner is earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month and he is working as a Munsi under a contractor.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.