- (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 14 of 2011 (T.R. No. 228 of 2014) whereby the court below had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amount @ Rs. 2,500/- to the O.P. No.2 and Rs. 3,500/- to the O.P. No.3.
(2.) Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has fixed the quantum of maintenance without adjudicating the issue regarding the income of the petitioner. That the court below on the basis of conjecture has held that the petitioner is earning Rs.20,000/- by running a computer institute, whereas the O.P. No.2 in her deposition in the court below has admitted that she cannot adduce any document regarding the income of the petitioner from the computer institute, neither can she say whether the petitioner is an income tax payee. That it is evident from the salary statement obtained from the Jharkhand Sarb Siksha Abhiyan, that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 11,034/- per month. It is urged that the court below should have considered the fact that this is a contractual job. It is urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife i.e. O.P. No.2 and he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and suggestion was also given to O.P. No.2 in cross-examination but she has refused to reside with the petitioner. That in fact O.P. No.2 has been pressurizing the petitioner to leave his aged parents and reside with her at her father's house. It is urged that the petitioner has to pay the maintenance to his father who has filed a maintenance case against him. On the above grounds it is argued that the O.P. No.2 is not entitled to any maintenance in terms of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. as she is residing separately without any sufficient cause that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the material evidence on record and is not sustainable in law or on facts.
(3.) Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that as per the show cause, attached with the counter affidavit, it would be evident that the petitioner has admitted that he is eking out his livelihood by running a computer institute. That the salary statement of the petitioner at Annexure-C, shows that he is drawing a salary of Rs. 11,034/-. It is contended that O.P. No.2/wife had appeared in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and a compromise was also filed whereafter she resided with the petitioner but she was again subjected to cruelty. She was assaulted by the petitioner and his parents and ousted from the matrimonial home, due to which she filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. It is urged that O.P. No 2 has sufficient cause to reside separately from the company of the petitioner/husband and the quantum of maintenance as has been assessed in view of the admission in show-cause by the petitioner that he is running a computer institute and draws a salary of Rs. 11,034/- per month. That the revision is fit to be dismissed.;