Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Respondent denied the allegations and stated that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. No cash amount or car was demanded.

However, learned Family Court, while recording the finding that as the petitioner No.1 is earning handsomely being computer faculty in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Rohtak, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance, but petitioner No.2, who is the son of the parties, is staying away from the respondent due to matrimonial dispute, was held entitled for maintenance. While considering the income of the respondent as Rs.10,000/- per month, the learned Family Court awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the petition.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners.

The reasoning given by the learned Family Court denying maintenance to petitioner No.1 and allowing maintenance to petitioner No.2, reads as under:-

"It may be pointed out here that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent on 5.12.2014 and out of the said wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. However, there is specific plea on the part of respondent that petitioner No.1 (wrongly mentioned as petitioner No.2) is working and is earning. A document Mark P/S is existing on the file which is part of consolidated report regarding joining of computer teacher pertaining to month of March, 2017. The said document shows that petitioner No.1 joined as a computer faculty in Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Rohtak Block, on 6th March, 2017. During the course of arguments, another document has been produced on the file showing attendance of petitioner No.1 in the said school on 2.8.2018. From these documents, it is clear that petitioner No.1 is working. But she intentionally withheld this information. Petitioner No.1 is earning handsomely being computer faculty in Govt. Girls Senior Sr. School, Rohtak. Therefore, she does not deserve any maintenance from the respondent. In view of this situation, there is no need of discussing other evidence regarding the main dispute between the parties. The maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is only given when the petitioner is not having any source of income,

4 of 6 CRR(F)-985-2019 (O&M) -5- but petitioner No.1 as referred above is working and is earning handsomely and thus, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. However, petitioner No.2, son of the parties, is staying away from the respondent due to matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent. He being son of respondent is entitled to claim maintenance from him. Respondent, admittedly, is working in SAK Fabrics Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi. He has admitted his salary as Rs.10,000/- per month at page 3 of the reply. Since both the parents of petitioner No.2 are working, both have equal responsibility to maintain him. Petitioner No.1 is already taking care of petitioner No.2. In such eventuality, respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of this petition. The petition, accordingly stands partly allowed. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance." The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. At the same time, petitioner No.1-Jyoti is also working as a computer faculty in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Rohtak since March, 2017. In the absence of any conclusive evidence so as to establish the income of the respondent, the learned Family Court has assessed the income of the respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly, awarded maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.2.