WELDONE LYNGDOH Vs. EVA PHAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954 is directed against the judgment dated 22. 8. 2003 passed by the learned Addl. Judge, District council Court, Shillong in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2003 whereby the appellant was directed to pay maintenance allowances of Rs. 1000/- per month to the respondent and a further sum of Rs. 750/- per month for maintenance of the first adopted child.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition may be briefly noticed at the very outset. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Court of Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong against the appellant claiming maintenance allowances for herself and their two adopted female children, which was registered as MCR Case No. 9 of 2001. The case of the respondent is that she is the legal wife of the appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 27. 3. 1981 and when no issues were born from their wedlock, they adopted two female children on 20. 2. 1996 and on 4. 2. 2001, whose names are Miss Julinda Phawa and Miss Mervillind Phawa respectively. It is alleged by the respondent therein that the appellant deserted her and her adopted children since December 2000 and refused to maintain them, though they are dependent on him for their maintenance. The respondent claims that they have been unable to maintain themselves ever since their desertion by the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant is serving as Lower Division Assistance in the Election Office, Govt. of Meghalaya and is drawing Rs. 8,000/- per month as salary. The maintenance allowances claimed by the respondent is to the order of Rs. 3000/-per month. The appellant resists the application by filing his written objection in which he categorically denies all the allegations made by the respondent. The appellant contends that the adoption of the children are illegal and the documents of adoption relied on by the respondent are false and fabricated documents and the signatures contained therein are also forged and that once it is shown that no issues were born from their marriage, the question of maintaining the adopted children would not arise. It was also contended by the appellant herein that the respondent is a rich lady having a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/- which she earns through her landed properties situated at different parts of Shillong. He, therefore, claims that as he is earning a meager salary, is looking after his old aged parents and is not able to maintain the respondent and the adopted children.

(3.) THE trial Court, after hearing both the parties, by Judgment and Order dated 23. 12. 2002 directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month for the maintenance of the respondent and her two adopted children with effect from 1. 12. 2002. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the appellant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 1 of 2003 before the learned Addl. District Council Court, Shillong, who, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment partly allowing the revision petition in the manner indicated in the beginning. The Additional District Council Court, Shillong held that the adoption of the first child had taken place at the time when the appellant and the respondent were staying together and that the adoption in respect of this child was done with the consent of the appellant. In so far as the second adopted child is concerned, the trial Court held that there was no evidence on record to show that the adoption was done with the consent of the appellant and that the second adoption had taken place after the appellant deserted the respondent, and, as such, there was no question of maintaining the second adopted child by him. The aforesaid findings are under challenge in this revision petition.