The agreement had been brought on record and has been marked as Ext. C. The original documents with respect to Ext. A, B and C were never filed and only typed copy was filed. Even Ext. C which is the alleged agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, the same relates to divorce proceeding and it does not reveal that the opposite party No. 2 had foregone her right to claim maintenance from the petitioner. Thus on consideration of the contents of the Ext. C, the learned court below had rightly allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 1500 per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued about the quantum of maintenance, but considering the present day economic scenario, the amount of Rs. 1500/- is a very meagre amount and the petitioner being the husband of the opposite party No. 2 has a bounden duty to maintain his wife. Therefore on consideration of the facets of the case no illegality is detected in the impugned judgment passed in Misc. Case No. 40 of 2000 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur and accordingly, having been found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.
