IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1838 of 2007 MD.MANJAR KHAN @ MD.MANJAR @ GUDDU Versus RASHIDA KHATOON & ANR ----------- 03. 12.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who was opposite party in the learned court below, challenging order dated 28.08.2007 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad, allowed Maintenance Case No. 65 of 2006(25 of 2006) directing him to pay Rs.1000/- each to his wife and daughter(opposite party)per month as maintenance. The aforesaid maintenance case was filed by the opposite party for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to them. In the said case the petitioner, who was opposite party appeared whereafter both the parties produced evidence and the matter was finally decided by the learned court below. The relationship between the parties is admitted and the only matters in dispute are as to whether the opposite parties have deserted the petitioner and whether the petitioner has sufficient source of income to pay the amount of maintenance. The opposite party, who was applicant in the court below had produced her father, brothers and herself as AWs. in support of her claim whereas the petitioner, who was opposite party in the court below produced six witnesses including himself as O.PW.-5 denying the claim of the - 2 - applicant and also O.PW.-6, who was a formal witness. Learned court below considered the pleadings and the materials of the parties very carefully and in detail and found that it is admitted case that there was marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.1 and that opposite parties are living separately from the petitioner. Furthermore the specific case of opposite parties was that they were forced to live separately as the petitioner tortured his wife and even attempted to kill her by burning due to which a criminal case has been filed which is pending before the trial court. This fact has been denied by the petitioner, who stated that opposite party no. 1 was burnt while cooking . Admittedly there was a compromise between the parties but after sometimes the opposite parties again had to leave the petitioner’s place. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned court below has arrived at a finding that opposite party no.1 had successfully established her case that she was living separately only because the petitioner had behaved very cruelly towards her and continued to torture her even after compromise and had finally ousted her. So far question of income of the petitioner is concerned, the learned court below has found that the arguments and materials adduced on behalf of opposite parties was much convincing, proving that he is the owner of steel almirah shop and is not mere a labourer. It has been also found that the petitioner has failed to produce any material on record to show that he is working - 3 - as a labourer in the said steel almirah shop. The learned court below further found that even O.PW.4, who had come to support the petitioner’s case had stated that the said witness had no licence to run the shop and also stated that he had no knowledge as to whether the petitioner was imprisoned. This clearly showed that the said witness was not reliable witness because had he been the owner or co-owner of the shop concerned, he would have known that the petitioner was absent from the shop and was imprisoned. In the said circumstances the learned court below has rightly found that the petitioner is not a labourer rather he is a owner of steel almirah shop and in addition to that he possesses cultivable lands also and hence, he is liable to pay maintenance to both of the opposite parties. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)