Amitav K.Gupta,J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case no.9/2005 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. each to O.P.no.2 and her minor daughter.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while referring to the impugned judgment, has submitted that the learned court below has itself held in para 37 that the pleading of the O.P. is defective so far as maintenance is concerned and despite the pleading being defective, the trial court has passed the impugned order on conjecture and surmises. It is submitted that the learned Principal Judge has held that no document or evidence whatsoever has been led for assessment of the income of the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned trial court, considering the fact that no evidence was brought on record to show the income of the petitioner, has observed that a labourer also earns Rs.125/- per day. It is submitted that even if the income is assessed at Rs. 125/- per day, then the monthly income of the petitioner comes to Rs.3,750/- consequently order granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- p.m.(i.e. Rs.1500/- p.m. to each of the O.Ps.) is exorbitant and excessive. It is further submitted that petitioner is still ready and willing to keep the O.P. and his minor daughter with full dignity and honour. That the petitioner is saddled with the responsibility to provide for the maintenance of his parents and other family members. Accordingly, it is urged that the awarded maintenance amount be set aside and reduced to a reasonable amount taking into account the liabilities of the petitioner and the assessment of income by the trial court.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.-wife has contended that petitioner had been making allegation that O.P.- wife was living in adultery. The petitioner had even denied the fatherhood of his minor daughter. That P.W.5 who has been examined as a witness has stated that petitioner plies auto-rickshaw and has agricultural income and the approximate monthly income of the petitioner is about Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- p.m. which is also supported by P.W.6. That the learned Principal Judge has observed that P.W.6 who is a literate person having knowledge of Hindi as well as Sanshkrit and has retracted from his earlier statement on affidavit by denying earlier statement that the petitioner plies auto-rickshaw on rent.;