- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is husband of the opposite party, challenging the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa, in Misc. Case no. 41 of 2008, whereby the Court below has allowed the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ -per month in favour of opposite party wife. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in the proceedings before the Court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C., evidence was adduced by both the parties. The claimant -wife has stated that the petitioner was having a Tyre Agency, through which his yearly earing is Rs. 5,00,000/ -and accordingly, she has claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,000/ -per month from the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order that the parties were examined in the Court below and documents were also proved. The discussion of the evidence of P.W.3 Priti Bala, who is wife, shows that she has deposed before the Court below that her husband has got an agency of tyre and his income was Rs. 5,00,000/ -per annum. As opposed to this, the petitioner himself in the Court below, who was examined as D.W.1, though initially he denied about any Tyre Agency, but immediately he admitted that the said tyre agency, namely, Lalti Tyre was there at the time of marriage. Again the petitioner claimed before the Court below that he has earning through tuition only, though he had admitted that at the time of marriage, there was a Tyre Agency.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below failed to take into consideration that the petitioner has not having such income, so as to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ -per month to the claimant wife. It has been submitted that evidence was brought on record to show that wife of the petitioner was mentally ill and learned counsel for the petitioner submitted during argument that Tyre Agency was closed in the year 2006 itself.;