HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsels for both the parties. Petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 5.2.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 32 of 2006, whereby, the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 1,000/ - per month to his deserted wife and also to make payment of Rs. 1,000/ - per month as maintenance to his minor child who is living with the wife and it has also been ordered that the payment of maintenance amount shall be made from the date of application itself.
(2.) IT appears that the opposite party No. 2 who is the wife of the petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance on the ground that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she was subjected to cruelty and torture even after a child was born to her and she was driven out from her matrimonial home. It is also alleged that the petitioner is keeping the younger sister of the opposite party No.2 with him and no maintenance was paid to her or her child. Being unemployed, the complainant has filed an application in the Court below, claiming that the petitioner is an employee of TISCO and he is also working as a Sahara Agent. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has disputed the allegations against him in the Court below, but he has stated that he is ready to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 500/ - per month of his wife. It further appears that both the sides had adduced evidence in the Court below, in which, petitioner had examined himself as witness, whereas Opposite Party No. 2 wife had examined two witnesses who were the Opposite Party No. 2 herself and her brother. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, who was subjected to cruelty and torture and was also driven away from her matrimonial home. The Court below has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner was keeping the younger sister of the Opposite Party No. 2 with him and as such, she had a reasonable ground for living away from her matrimonial home. So far the income of the petitioner is concerned, the Court below has come to the conclusion from the salary slip of the petitioner that in the month of November 2009, he was paid Rs. 7036.32/ - being the salary for fifteen days. The Court below also came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove in the Court below that his wife was employed somewhere. In these circumstances, the Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 1,000/ - per month as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 1000/ - per month to his minor child and the Court below has also directed the petitioner to make the payment of maintenance from the date of application itself.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner had shown his willingness to keep his wife along -with him. It has also been submitted that the impugned order so far as it directs the petitioner to make payment from the date of application, is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;