Deepak Roshan, J. - (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 14.07.2014 in Maintenance Case No.155 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby the learned court below has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2. The learned court below has further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- towards expenses.
(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 24.04.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Edalhatu, Morabadi, within the District of Ranchi. At the time of marriage the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh in cash and 7 Tola gold ornaments and some other household articles which were fulfilled by the parents of the opposite party no.2. After marriage the opposite party no.2 went to her matrimonial home on 22.04.2005 and lived there peacefully for some time but soon thereafter, a demand of Rs.1 lakh in cash and one Hero Honda Motorcycle was made by the petitioner. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the opposite party no.2 was subjected to mental and physical torture. She was also restrained from cohabiting with the petitioner by the in-laws and she was always assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. It has further been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that she was not allowed to enter into the kitchen, due to non-fulfillment of the demand and she was finally compelled to leave her matrimonial home in the month of February, 2006. Since then she started living with her elder sister at Edalhatu. It was also alleged that the petitioner neglects and refuses to maintain the opposite party no.2 even though several times she went to her matrimonial home but her husband and his family members abused and extended threat to kill her. It is further stated that she is unable to maintain herself. It was further alleged that the petitioner is a teacher in Central School, Hehal, and earns Rs.26,000/- per month. Besides, the petitioner has landed property and double storied house and he also derives income to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month from house rent and he also earns Rs.20,000/- per month from private tuition. The opposite party no.2 is now dependent upon her sister and as such she has claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.
(3.) The petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. The marriage has been admitted by the petitioner but other averments regarding demand of dowry and torture have been denied by him. The petitioner has further stated in his show cause that at the time of marriage the petitioner was unemployed person and the elder sister of the opposite party no.2 who had approached him for marriage had also made a proposal that the opposite party no.2 is a trained nurse and the household affairs will be managed by the income of both of them. After marriage the opposite party no.2 stayed at her matrimonial home only for four months and thereafter, she left her matrimonial home in the month of August, 2005, without the knowledge of the petitioner and his parents. It was specifically contended that no demand of dowry was ever made either at the time of marriage or subsequently. The entire allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2 are false and concocted. It was further stated that the father of the petitioner is a retired person and living in a small rented house. It has been categorically stated in the show-cause that the opposite party no.2 was never neglected by the petitioner and his parents. In fact, the brotherin-law of the petitioner Ashish Kumar Adhikari who instigated the opposite party no.2 to file the case of maintenance against him and also a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. The petitioner and his old parents were made accused in the criminal case. It was further stated by the petitioner that he was working as teacher and he used to get a consolidated amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from Satsang and Art of Living and also by playing 'Dholak' and 'Tabla', but he was removed from the service/organization as he was sent to jail in the case under Section 498-A I.P.C. The petitioner further stated in his show-cause that he does not own any landed property and as such question of deriving income from house rent does not arise. He is still ready to keep his wife with full dignity and respect and since the opposite party no.2 has left her matrimonial home on her own as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance and the case may be dismissed.;