SUKUMAL SAHA Vs. PRATIVA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura, Court No. 5, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc. No. 153 of 2000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 800/- per month in favour of the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 700/- per month to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 30.1.2003 and also the judgment dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in Crl. Revision 12(1)2003 upholding the said judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) The facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of both the parties may be briefly stated. The respondent No. 1 claims that she was married to the petitioner on 7.8.1994 at her father's house at Abhoynagar according to Hindu rites and customs and that after their marriage, they started living together as husband and wife. After about six months, the petitioner shifted at a rented house at Radhanagar, Agartala and during their stay there on 8.7.1995 a son was born to them whereupon the petitioner sent the respondent No. 1 to the house of her parents. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that since then the petitioner stopped looking after her and her minor son. It is further stated by the respondent No. 1 that after about two months, when she went to the house of the petitioner with her son, the petitioner refused to accept them and thereupon she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance to her and to her minor son. The case, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 61 of 1996, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class on 28.6.1997. It is claimed by the respondent that due to poverty she could not preferred the revision petition against the said order. The respondent No. 1 states that she has no income to support herself and her minor son whereas the petitioner is an employee of Tripura Road Transport Corporation (TRTC) and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 4,700/-. The petitioner contested the case and filed written objection denying his marriage with the respondent No. 1. The petitioner also denies that he is the father of the minor child. The petitioner also submits that in view of the dismissals of the earlier application in Misc. 61/1996, the second application filed by the respondent is not maintainable.

(3.) Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.