Ravi Nath Verma,J. - (1.) Calling in question the legal validity of the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Maintenance Case No. 98 of 2013 whereby and where under the learned court below has declined to grant maintenance to the petitioner no.1 but has allowed the maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner no.2 from the date of the order, the petitioners have moved this criminal revision application.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which are necessary to be stated, is that at the instance of the present petitioner no.1 along with her minor son petitioner no.2, the above case was filed in the court below with the allegation that her marriage with the present opposite party Rabindra Nath Goswami was solemnized on 29.04.2007 and since after the marriage, she along with her husband were living at Balidih, Bokaro. Out of their wedlock, the petitioner no. 2 was born but after living there for almost one year, the present opposite party - the husband and his family members started demanding dowry from her and forced her to bring it from her father. Due to non-fulfilment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture and on 02.01.2012, she was brutally assaulted by her husband and was driven out from her matrimonial house along with her minor son. The petitioner no.1 was treated in a private hospital. Where after she filed a complaint case bearing no. 440 of 2012 against her husband and other relatives, which was referred to the police station and Balidih P.S. Case No. 82 of 2012 was instituted but as the petitioners were neglected by the present opposite party, they filed the aforesaid case for maintenance. It further appears that before her filing of maintenance case, the present opposite party had filed a divorce case bearing T(M)Suit no. 118 of 2011 in the same court i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. As regard to the income of the opposite party, the petitioner has stated in the petition that her husband was working as an agent of LIC and Sahara and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and also earning Rs. 1,50,000/- annually from his ancestral property.
(3.) After notice by the court below, the present opposite party filed his show cause in the court concerned with the pleading that it was the petitioner no.1-his wife, who treated him with cruelty and always pressurised him to live separately from other family members and because of her ill-behaviour, he even tried to commit suicide and lost his mental balance for which, he was treated in Sai Hospital, Bokaro as well as in BGH, Bokaro. The opposite party in his show-cause has admitted that he is an agent of Sahara as well as LIC but has also stated that the present petitioner- his wife is also an agent of LIC and gets sufficient commission to maintain herself and minor child and besides that, she is also doing the work of tailoring and embroidery. As such, she is not entitled to any maintenance.;