- (1.) 5/ 08.05.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. This revision has been filed against the Judgment dated 14.7.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, in Misc. Case No. 62/2006, whereby the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner No. 1, Manjeet Kaur @ Geeta, who is the deserted wife of opposite party No. 2 Ballinder Singh and has also directed the opposite party No. 2 to give maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month each to his one son and one daughter, who were minors and living with their mother. Thus, the opposite party No. 2 has been directed to make payment of Rs. 1300/- per month to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this application for enchaining maintenance.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court below, wherein, petitioner No. 1 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of opposite party No. 2 having two children out of their wedlock and also claimed that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture due to which she had to take shelter at her parent's house along with her children. So far as the earning of opposite party No. 2 is concerned, it was stated that opposite party No. 2 used to earn about Rs. 10,000/- per month as he was plying auto rickshaw. The petitioners filed the application in the Court below stating that the petitioner-wife had no source of income to maintain herself. IT appears that opposite party No. 2 appeared in the Court below and objected the prayer. Evidence was adduced by both the sides. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Court below found that the petitioner No. 1 has a reasonable cause for living separately from her husband. On the point of income of opposite party No.2, it appears that only oral evidence was adduced by both the sides and no documentary evidence has been adduced by the parties. The petitioners claimed that opposite party No. 2 used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month by plying auto rickshaw, whereas opposite party No. 2 claimed that his earning was Rs. 70/- to 80/- per day only and he hardly earned Rs. 2000/- per month, out of which, he had to maintain his old father also. However, it is stated at the Bar that father of opposite party No. 2 has since, died. It appears that on the basis of the evidence brought on record by both sides, the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the deserted wife and Rs. 400/- per month each, to both the children. In view of the fact that the petitioner is admittedly having earning by plying auto rickshaw, I am of the considered view that the Court below has granted maintenance at the lower side, under estimating the income of the petitioner. The earning of the opposite party No. 2 must be sufficient at least to part with Rs. 1000/- per month for his deserted wife and Rs. 500/- per month each for his both children, for their maintenance. It appears from the impugned order that opposite party No. 2 used to make the payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month during pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 is hereby, modified to the extent that opposite party No. 2 shall make payment of Rs. 1000/- per month to his deserted wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 500/- each per month to his two children as they are minors and living with their mother.
(3.) THIS revision is accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.;