TAJENDRA KUMAR NATH Vs. MINA RANI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smti Mina Rani Nath (for short 'Mina'), the respondent herein, approached the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura by instituting;a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter Smti Moumita Nath (for short 'Moumita') from Shri Tajendra Kumar Nath (for short 'Tajendra'), the petitioner herein, with whom she claimed to have been legally married on 22.4.1982 and who fathered Moumita. Her prayer for maintenance having been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, she preferred a revision petition, which was registered as Criminal Motion No. 3(1) of 2002 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The said court allowed the revision petition setting aside the judgment and order of the learned court below with a direction to the petitioner husband herein to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month for the respondent wife herein and Rs. 1,000/- per month for their daughter w.e.f. 1.4.1998. A further division was given to pay the arrear amount of maintenance in 36 equal installments along with regular amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,200/- per month for both the wife and the daughter. Aggrieved, the petitioner husband has questioned the correctness and legality of the said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present Criminal Revision petition.

(2.) Before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mina claimed that Tajendra married her on 22.4.1982 in the house of Satyendra Nath (for short 'Satyendra') where she and her parents were living as tenants in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. A large number of people of that locality including 50 members of the groom party attended the marriage ceremony, which was performed by a priest. Satyendra, in whose house the marriage was solemnized and other witnesses have been examined as P.Ws. 2,3,4 and 5 all of whom supported her claim about the marriage between the parties. But after the marriage when the couple went to the house of the groom, his parents refused to accept them on the ground that bride's parents did not pay the dowry of Rs. 10,000/- as per their demand. The couple had to come back to the house of Satyendra and lived there for about two months. On 14.6.1982 they appeared before the learned Executive Magistrate, Dharmanagar and swore an affidavit in support and proof of their marriage. Thereafter, the couple went to Karimganj, a town in Assam and started to lead their conjugal life in a rented house. She became pregnant in due course and on 21.8.1990, the husband brought her to her father's house at Padmapur, Dharmanagar. On 21.10.1990, she gave birth to a daughter, Moumita. The husband gradually distanced himself from her and the baby and stopped to look after them. She came to know later that Tajendra married again on 12.3.1986 during the subsistence of his marriage with her, keeping her quite in dark. The information that Tajendra was living with the second wife in his own house shocked her and she at once went to his house to assert her right where she was badly treated by the inmates of the husband including mother, brother and second wife of Tajendra. They abused her in filthy language, assaulted her and drove her away. Since then she along with her daughter had taken shelter in the house of her brother. As she had no means of livelihood, she approached the learned court below for maintenance from Tajendra, who is the owner of Swapanlok Studio at Kalibari Road, Dharmanagar earning six/seven thousand rupees per month. She claimed Rs. 1,200/- per month for herself and Rs. 1,000/- per month for her daughter as maintenance.

(3.) Tajendra, however, contested the claim of Mina denying his marriage with her. On the contrary, he claimed that he had married one Bina Rani Nath on 12.3.1981, prior to the alleged marriage with the petitioner and a son was born to them on 3.6.1987. On 1.10.1993 a daughter was also born to them. He claimed that Mina, her brothers and father being close neighbours attended his marriage function like Chaturthamangal. They also attended the Annaprasan ceremony of his son. 1 is the grievance of Tajendra that with a view to harass and humiliate him and his family members, two brothers of Mina had assaulted him on one occasion following which Dharmanagar RS. Case No. 8/98 under Section 326 I.PC. was registered. The marriage having been totally denied, the learned Judicial Magistrate was called upon to decide whether there existed a prima facie case of marriage between the parties to justify an order of maintenance in favour of the petitioner before him.