1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Dilip Vanwani Vs. Smt. Usha (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1239/2010) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: December 06, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Lokesh Sharma, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month since 02.11.2010 to the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent, Smt. Usha, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge for maintenance. In the application she has stated that the marriage was solemnized on 24th November, 208 at Ajmer. According to her, ever since the marriage, the petitioner and his family members 2 have demanded dowry and have threated her cruelty. Therefore, she left the matrimonial home and is reisding with her father. Thus, she prayed for maintenance. The petitioner filed his reply and controverted the facts contained in the application. However, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 02.11.2010, the learned Judge allowed the application and ordered payment of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to the petitioner, he is working on a contract basis in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper and is earning merely Rs.3,000/- per month. He is, also, staying in rented premises. Moreover, he has to look after his aged parents. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in assessing his income as Rs.4,000/- per month and in awarding a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent. Moreover, according to the petitioner, the respondent happens to be working as a nurse and is earing about Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 3 As far as the income of the respondent is concerned, although it was alleged by the petitioner that she is earing Rs.7,000/- per month while working as a nurse in the hospital, the said plea was never proved by him. In the absence of any cogent proof, the learned Judge was certainly justified in dismissed the said plea. Although it is true that a income certificate was issued by the Assistant Manager, Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper, however the same was never proved by the petitioner. In the absence of proving the said certificate, the learned Judge was equally justified in concluding that according to the Minimum Wages Act, an unskilled worker is entitled to Rs.100/- per day. Since the petitioner happens to be an educated person and is working as a journalist in a well known newspaper, his salary would be Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, the conclusion drawn with regard to the salary of the petitioner cannot be said to be misplaced. Although it might be that the petitioner has to support his aged parents, but even then, the petitioner, being the lawful wedded husband, is both legally and morally liable to maintain his wife as well. Therefore, his contention that merely because he has to look after his old 4 parents, this contention cannot preclude him from looking after his wife. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki