Ashish Singh @ Ashish Kumar Singh v. Sanju Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.909 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Siwan ====================================================== ASHISH SINGH @ ASHISH KUMAR SINGH Son of Suresh Chandra Singh Resident of Village - Rampur, Hassanpurwa Ka Tola, P.S.- Hussainganj, Dist.- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

SANJU DEVI D/O Birendra Singh, W/O Ashish Singh @ Ashish Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Ghanadih, P.S.- Daraunda, Dist.- Siwan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raghav Prasad For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 16-01-2024 An order of maintenance passed in Maintenance Case No. 71 of 2012 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Siwan vide order dated 19th June, 2019 is assailed by the opposite party/husband on the following grounds:-

2. (i) The learned trail court fixed the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioner without considering the monthly income of the opposite party.

(ii) Admittedly, in the wedlock between the petitioner and the opposite party, the latter gave birth to a female child. The said child is residing with the petitioner and he has been maintaining her.

(iii) The opposite party as petitioner in the trial

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.909 of 2019(3) dt.16-01-2024 2/3 court failed to produce any document with regard to income of the opposite party/husband. On the other hand, the opposite party adduced the evidence of PW-2, under whom, he works as a tracter driver. The said witness stated on oath that he pays Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party as his salary. (iv) The learned trial Judge failed to consider that with the meager amount of Rs. 6,000/- he maintains himself and his daughter, therefore, he is not in a position to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the maintenance of the petitioner.

3. Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the above points as submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner had not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. When the petitioner failed to produce any contrary evidence with regard to the income of the opposite party/husband, the evidence laid on behalf of the opposite party as to his income must be accepted.

4. At the same time, this court is not unmindful to note that the petitioner is under obligation to maintain his wife even if a person does not have any ostensible source of income, he is under obligation to maintain his wife.

5. Considering the income of the petitioner as

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.909 of 2019(3) dt.16-01-2024 3/3 found of the evidence of opposite party no.2 and the fact that he maintains his minor daughter, this court is of the view that a direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- will be just and proper order for maintenance to be paid by the present petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19th June, 2019 passed in Maintenance Case No. 71 of 2012 is modified directed the the opposite party no.2 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- from the date of filing of the application. The instant Revision is thus disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) Guddu/- U T