- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.2.2008 passed in Maintenance Case No. 40 of 2005, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to his deserted wife and also to pay Rs. 500/- per month to his minor son, who is living with his mother. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner as maintenance to opposite party No.2-wife. It appears that the maintenance case was filed by opposite party No. 2-wife, alleging that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and she was ultimately driven away from her matrimonial house on 21.5.1995 and thereafter she is living with her parents. It was also stated by opposite party-wife that she has no means to maintain herself and her child and has claimed maintenance from her husband stating that her husband was having five acres of cultivable land, one beetle shop and was selling the crops and also having cows giving milk. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner being the opposite party had appeared in the case and filed his show cause denying the allegations. So far as the factum of marriage is concerned, the same is admitted between the parties. It further appears that opposite party-wife had adduced evidence in the Court below, in which, she has proved her case, but no evidence was adduced by the petitioner and ultimately, taking into consideration the reasonable earning of the petitioner from five acres of cultivable land, beetle shop and cows giving milk, the Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 1000/- per month to his deserted wife and also Rs. 500/- per month to his minor son for their maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner is always ready to keep his wife along with him.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. After having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the impugned order passed by the Court blow is based on evidence adduced by the opposite party-wife and it appears from the evidence that she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her in-laws and as such, she has reasonable cause for living separately from her husband. Opposite party-wife has also been able to prove the fact that the petitioner is having landed and other property having earnings from them and taking into consideration the reasonable earning of the petitioner from his property, the Court below has passed the order of maintenance.;