SRI TARUN DAS Vs. SMTI. PURNIMA BORA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the final order, dated 12.12.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tezpur, Sonitpur in Misc. Case No. 20/2009 under Section 125 of the Cr.PC ordering the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the present respondent.

(2.) The present respondent initiated a proceeding against the present petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.PC claiming maintenance allowance vide her petition, dated 10.02.2009. In her petition, the respondent claimed that the present petitioner married her on 08.12.2004 in the office of the Marriage Officer, Sonitpur, Tezpur under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. At the time of marriage, her father gave furniture, gold ornaments and utensils, etc. Both the parties lived together peacefully for about 2-3 months after their marriage and thereafter the petitioner subjected her to torture, both mentally and physically, although she continued with her conjugal life thinking about her future. She has also alleged in her petition that she got pregnant thrice through the petitioner although every time the pregnancy was terminated at the instance of the petitioner. It has been specifically stated in the petition by the present respondent that before her marriage with the present petitioner she had maintained relation with one youth and through him she has mothered two children, one male and one female, aged about 11 years and 8 years respectively. Her first male child is staying with her parents and the second female child has been adopted by a couple.

(3.) After her relation with the youth got severed, the present respondent stayed in her parental home and during her such stay at her parental home, she came in contact with the present petitioner who proposed to marry her to which she agreed with initial reluctance. Thereafter she got married under the Special Marriage Act, as aforesaid, with the present petitioner. She alleged that after marriage she was behaved like a servant by the present petitioner and he married her only to fulfil his lust.