- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the Judgment dated 22nd June, 2011, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Maintenance Case No.62 of 2005, whereby the petitioner is directed to make payment of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to his deserted wife with effect from the date of filing the application, i.e. 26.7.2005 and the arrear of the amount has been directed to be paid within three months. From the impugned Judgment, it appears that the marriage between the parties is admitted and it is also admitted that the marriage had been taken place 35 years ago and the daughters and son of the petitioner and the O.P. are also married. It further appears that the petitioner has admitted in his evidence in the Court below that he married the second lady and he is living with her. It further appears from the evidence of the petitioner himself that he has admitted to be a driver in P.H.E.D. Department of the State of Jharkhand. In backdrop of these facts, the Court below has directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to his deserted wife taking into consideration the earning of the petitioner, working as a driver in the State Government, to be sufficient. The Court below has directed to make payment of the arrears from the date of filing of the application within three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the Court below has given no finding as to the earning of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order directing the petitioner to make payment of the amount of arrears within three months, is very harsh upon the petitioner as the petitioner is only a 4th Grade employee in the State Government. With these submissions, learned counsel challenged the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the material brought on record and as discussed in the impugned Judgment itself, it is apparent that the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the OP wife claimed that the earning of the petitioner is about Rs.10,000/- per month. However, it appears that the pay slip of the petitioner had not been proved by the either side, but taking into consideration the admission of the petitioner himself that he is a driver in the State government, the earning of the petitioner was found to be sufficient, so as to make the payment of Rs.3,000/- per month to his deserted wife. As such, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgment worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.;