IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1452 of 2009
Md.Imam Qureishi, son of Late Md. Kashim Qoraishi, resident
of village-Olhanpur, P.S.-Marhaurah, P.O.-Khodaibag, District-
Saran (Chapra).
........Petitioner
Versus
Sairabanu, wife of Md. Imam Qoraishi, daughter of Mahbub
Qoraishi, resident of Mohalla- Beta Gali, Brahampura, P.S.-
Brahampura, District- Muzaffarpur.
...........Opposite Party
-----------
3. 04.11.2011 This revision application has been preferred under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order
dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case
No.114/05 by which the petitioner has been directed to
pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month to his wife, opposite
party for her maintenance.
The opposite party filed Maintenance Case
No.114/05 claiming to be the wife of the petitioner. After
few years of marriage, the petitioner, his sister and
brothers started torturing her physically and mentally and
demanded Rs.5000/- which was fulfilled by the father of
the opposite party, but they again started demanding
Rs.20000/- which could not be fulfilled. Thereafter, she
has been deserted and has not been maintained by her
2
husband, who is a fruit vendor and his monthly income is
more than Rs.4000/-, besides it he has also agricultural
land and from it annual income is Rs.50,000/-.
Earlier, a petition was also filed for maintenance,
which was compromised and a Panchnama was prepared
on 6.10.2004 and on the same day, the compromise
petition was also filed in maintenance case no.405/01 and
the case under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 125
Cr.P.C. were disposed of in view of the compromise, but
after the compromise, the petitioner again started to
neglect his wife and her children and finally he refused to
maintain them.
In spite of appearance and participation in
reconciliation process, no show-cause has been filed by
the petitioner. After taking evidence on behalf of both the
parties, the impugned order has been passed directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-per month for the
maintenance of his wife and his two minor daughters, who
are living with her.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not able to pay the amount of
maintenance. He is a salesman of fruit on a Thela and he is
3
not in a position to pay Rs.1500/-per month and he is
ready to pay Rs.800/-per month.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that
it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of
the opposite party and father of her two minor daughters,
who are living with the opposite party. The petitioner has
refused to maintain his wife and two minor daughters,
although he has sufficient means to maintain them.
Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the
parties, the learned Principal Judge has directed to pay a
sum of Rs.1500/-per month only for the maintenance of
his wife and two minor daughters. The amount of
maintenance is itself meagre.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order. This petition is dismissed.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)