Suraj Yadav v. Smt. Asha Yadav

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 272 OF 2016 Suraj Yadav, S/o Dulichand Yadav, aged about 40 years, R/o Krishnapura Ward, Kachara Muhalla, Gondiya, District Gondiya (Maharashtra) ... Applicant

Versus

1.

Smt. Asha Yadav, W/o Suraj Yadav 2.

Sarang Yadav S/o Suraj Yadav, aged about 04 years (through Smt. Asha Yadav mother) Both R/o Ayodhyangar, Mahasamund Police Station, Tahsil, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant :

Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Non-applicants :

Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/07/2016 1.

By way of the present revision petition, the challenge is to the order dated 26.2.2016 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund in Misc. Criminal Case No. 3 of 2015.

2.

Vide impugned order dated 26.2.2016, the Court below has in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC granted maintenance to Nonapplicant No.1/wife to the tune of Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 1500/- to the minor Non-applicant No.2.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant challenging the said order mostly confined his arguments on the amount of maintenance being awarded to be on the higher side. He assails the said quantum on the ground that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the present Applicant does not have a sufficient source of income to meet the maintenance amount awarded by the Court below and so far as the source of income

-2part is concerned the same has not been taken in its proper perspective by the Court below.

4.

According to the Applicant, he is working as an Accountant along with his father with a Chartered Accountant and they are very low paid employees and therefore the amount awarded by the Court below either should be set aside or at-least should be reduced substantially. 5.

However, from the perusal of the records it is reflected that the Applicant has not been able to show as to what is the actual income that he draws and there is no evidence in this regard which the Applicant has brought during the course of evidence before the Court below neither has the Applicant shown any keen interest to ensure that the Non-applicants come along with him to stay. On the contrary, there is a categorical averment made by Non-applicant No.1/wife that there have been periodical assaults made by the Applicant on her and to which she has also enclosed some documents, i.e., Exhibit P-1 which is a document pertaining to the treatment that she had incurred after the assault that the Applicant had allegedly inflicted injuries upon her and Exhibit P-2 which is a photograph to show the injuries that she had sustained at the instance of the Applicant. 6.

So far as the injuries and the assaults made by the Applicant on his wife/Non-applicant No.1 is concerned, the finding of the Court below is that there was no rebuttal put forth by the Counsel for the Applicant in the cross-examination made to Non-applicant No.1/wife and in the absence of any rebuttal the contentions of the wife stand proved. On the contrary, there is an admission on the part of the Applicant in the course of crossexamination that on 22.12.2014 there was an altercation and quarrel that took place between the husband and wife and this is the day on which the wife had got herself treated because of the injuries that she had sustained allegedly at the instance of the Applicant.

-37.

All these facts and submissions clearly indicate that there were sufficient reasons for Non-applicant No.1/wife to leave the matrimonial home and live at her parental home. Further, in the absence of any cogent evidence being led by the Applicant so far as his actual source of income is concerned, the amount of Rs. 2500/- granted by the Court below to Nonapplicant No.1/wife if divided into 30 days, the same would come to less than Rs.100/- per day and so is the amount of Rs.1500/- which has been quantified for the minor Non-applicant No.2 would come to roughly Rs.75/- per day, which under no stretch of imagination particularly keeping in view the today's cost of living can be said be exorbitant or on the higher side. 8.

For the foregoing reasons, the present Criminal Revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge