APPUCANT RBSPONDENT RESPONDBNT HIGH COURTOF GHHATTISGAKH AT BILAaPUR \ <2rIminalRevisioaNo. 407 /2005 Mohanlal Malekar, S/o. Gulab Siagh Malekar, Aged about 34 years, R/o Lohar Colouy, House No.H/09, Shiv Mandir Mahasamund, Post, Tahsil & Distt: Mahasamund (C.G.) VBRSU^ 4 Paoimi Malekar, W/o. Mohanlal f ' Mafekar, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Sector 6(A) Market Road No.46, House No. 2/A, Post Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & District:- Dui^(C.G.) EiSMi1 ir'il Y. !i;l"\-!--i REVISION PETITION UNDBR SBCTION 19 (41 OFTHE PAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 (SB :Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: - Shri Vaibhav A. Gkwerdhan, couasel wifh Shri Manoj Paraajpe, counsel for the appUGanfc Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed oa 04712/2008) 1. Thls petition is directed agaiast fhe order dated 4/5/2005 passed by Leamed PrmcipalJudge, Famity Court, Dur^ in M.J.C. No. 249/05 wliere by Learaed Priucipal Judge, Family Court bas awarded fhe m.aintenance ofRs. 2000/- periaonth to non-applicant who iswife ofthe appUcant. 2. Order is chaBenged on fhe ground fhat Court below has aot considered 'k;. . _ .. ' fhat the non-appUcant is Mviag separately froin the applicant without auy leasonable aad cogent cause aud awarded mamtenauce and fhereby committed aay iltegality. 3. Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdbau, counsel. wifh Shri Maaoj Paranjpe, counsel for the applicaat and Shri Jiteadra Gupta, couasel for the noa-appUcant are heard. ^ !M: '<.;' -2- \! : 4. Order impugned aad record ofCourts below perused. 5. Leamed couasel for the applicant subtnits that non-appUcaat has faffled to adduce the evidence to fhe effect that she is haviag reasoiiable ground for Uviag separately fi-bin her husband. She has also failed to pTove the iticoine of applicaut and despite ftie court below has awarded ftie inamtenance to her. Lear&ted counsel for fhe applicaat further subinits that non-appUcant herself has admitted ia her statement fhat she faas filed the application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Cotirt situated at Durg aad also adinitted ia her evidence that ia the repty of appUcation filed by fhe applicaut for keepiag her happily aad peaccfiiUy in a divorce proceediag pendiag before the Court situated at Mahasamund she has denied to live wifh fhe appUcant. Learued counsel for ftie appUcaut also submits that it shows that nou-appUcaiit is not williag aad ready to Uve with the applicaat and she is not hawnj reasonable aad sufficient cause for Uving separately from hcr husbaad and claitn inainteaatice. 6. On fhe ofher hands, order impugned is supported on behalf of the non- appllcant and uon-applicant submits fhat appllcaat and their fauuty members ousted the non-applicant Ironi fheir house and harassed aad tortured. She has speci&caUy deposed the incoine of applicaat but appUcaat has not filed an^'docuinent relating to his incoiue. Coiu-t below has righUy awarded the niaititenauce to fhe non-appMcant. Non- appUcaat has specificaUy stated fhat applicaat aad tlieir relatives used to harass her aiid her life is danger but if applicaat ^reed ia writing for her security ftien she m.ay live with applicaat. She has also steted fhat iucoiue ofthe appUcantis Rs. SeveaThousand penaonfh and he is a !! i] 'i 'ii •^. -^"''- -3- \ . Govemment servaiit. Applicant has also stated ffaat his m.come is total of Rs, Five Thousand and after deduction he received Rs. 4,300/- t)ut he has not filed any docuinent relatmg to his pay. The docuiaent ofpay was tu possession of applicant but he has wiBfuIly witttheld the dociuneut. 7. The proceediug pendiug before fhe different Courts between the parties aad the stateiaent ofboth th^'parties reveals fhat relation ofthe parties are cordial aud non-applicant is liviag separately fiuia her husband which is sufficient cause for her living separately. As regard fhe questioa of quaatiun of maiateiiauce is concem. Burdeu to prove the iacoiue of fhe applicaut was on ttie non-applicant and she has stated fhe inconie of her husband is Rs. Seven Thousaad per nioiith. She is wife of the applicaut aad would be in position to know fhe iucome of her husband. She has dischai^ed her onus. Present applicant has also stated Iris iacome. He is a Goverruuent Servaat, he was ia position to produce the document iu support of her oral stateiaent which may be of conclusive nature but reason best known to the applicant hc has not pioduced and has wifhhold fhe document of his iQGOine. He has not discharged his onus. After appreciating the oral statement of bofh fhe parties Court below has awarded Rs. 2,000 / - to the non-appUcant Takiug iato consideration the statenient ofboth fhe parties Coiut has not conunitted aay fflegalily by awardiag Rs. ^2,000/-, I do not find any iUegalily in the order itapugned. Consequently, fhe petition is disniissed. '• 8. M. (Cri.)P. No. 2162/2005 aud I.A.No. 3006/2005 stand disposed of. Sd/- • T^.Stta%na Judge