1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Jamaludeen @ Jamal Vs. Smt. Shabina @ Sonia (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1525/2009) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397 as well as 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Order :- 04th November, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.D.P. Pujari, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent from the date of judgment. Mr. D.P. Pujari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had divorced respondent according to Shariyat law. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in assessing petitioner's income. Moreover, the petitioner is unable to pay the maintenance amount as he is merely a labourar. Lastly, the respondent has gotten divorced even on earlier occasion. She is a lady who is in the habit of getting divorced and then in seeking maintenance. Therefore, she is disentitled from seeking any maintenance from the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 2 A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has considered the issue whether the petitioner had validly and legally divorced the respondent or not. After meticulously analysing the evidence, the learned Judge has concluded that the petitioner has not been able to prove the factum of divorce. Therefore, the learned Judge had correctly concluded that the parties continue to be married to each other. Secondly, the learned Judge has also noted that the respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Therefore, she has sufficient reasons for staying away from the petitioner. As far as the petitioner's income is concerned, the learned Judge has relied upon the evidence produced by the petitioner himself to conclude that he is a labouror, who would be earning about Rs.3,000/- per month. Out of Rs.3,000/-, the learned Judge has directed a payment of merely Rs.800/- per month to the respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge has legally and validly inferred the petitioner's income. Considering the phenomenon increase in price, considering the fact that the respondent would have to maintenance herself on a meager amount of Rs.800/- per month, the said amount is not an unreasonable amount to be awarded to her. In this view of the matter, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-