Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Upon evidence being recorded the learned Magistrate by the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four thousand) only per month to the opposite party no.1 and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only per month to the minor daughter.

In revision, the order was upheld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the income of the husband has not been established and that quantum of maintenance fixed by the courts below was excess.

I have considered the materials on record. Relationship between the parties is admitted. There is no evidence on record that the opposite party no.1/wife has independent source of income. Criminal case is pending at the behest of the opposite party no.1/wife over the issue of physical assault.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that the opposite party no.1/wife had withdrawn herself from the company of the husband without sufficient cause. Evidence has come on record that the husband/petitioner has business income and sufficient properties, and as such, it cannot be said that the findings of the courts below as to the quantum of maintenance are perverse or contrary to law which calls for no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.