- (1.) 2 /01.05.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 30.03.2011, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar, in Cr. Misc. Case No.64 of 2008, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to his deserted wife and Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of his daughter, who is living with her mother. It appears from the impugned Judgment that the application was filed by the O.P. No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner, in the court below under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she claimed to be a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of their wedlock the daughter was born. She has alleged that she was tortured and subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry and was also driven out of the matrimonial home along with her daughter. She has stated that she has no income of her own and she stated that her husband is a stockist and wholesaler of fruits and vegetables and he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from his business. The petitioner objected the prayer of the O.P. No.2 in the court below, but the marriage and the birth of the daughter from their wedlock are admitted in this case. It appears that the petitioner has denied his income to be from the wholesale business of fruits and vegetables, but he has admitted that he has the business of vegetables in the local market. In the court below, both the parties adduced the evidence and in course of evidence, the O.P. No.2, who is the wife, had expressed her wiliness to lead the conjugal life with the petitioner, whereas the petitioner in his cross examination had clearly stated that he will not take his wife with him and he will not live with her in future. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court below found that the petitioner had no emotional attachment for his wife and daughter and he was responsible for deserting them. The Court below has also taken into consideration the fact that admittedly the petitioner was having business of vegetable in the local market and has thus, found that the petitioner has sufficient income to maintain his wife and daughter and has accordingly, directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to his daughter, who is living with her mother.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Judgment is absolutely illegal, in as much as, there was valid reason for the petitioner not to keep his wife along with him. The petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail in the criminal case filed against him under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, in which some conciliation process was taken by this Court and the petitioner was asked to bring his wife to the matrimonial home, but when the petitioner had gone to bring his wife on 09.03.2009, he was assaulted by his brother-in-law and this fact was brought to the notice of this Court by way of supplementary affidavit. LEARNED counsel accordingly, submitted that he has reasonable cause for not keeping the wife with him and accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the impugned Judgment, I find that even in spite of earlier cases, the wife was ready to live with the petitioner, but petitioner flatly refused to keep his wife along with him and the Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that it is the petitioner, who had deserted his wife, and taking into consideration the income of petitioner, the court below has passed the order of maintenance.;