SHYAMDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This application in revision filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 28-6-1997 passed by Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Revision No. 215/95 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 1-7-1996 passed by Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 13/94 . By his order the learned Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to opposite party No. 2 and also at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to her son under the provisions of S. 125 of the Code.

(2.) It appears that opposite party No. 2, Malti Devi, wife of Shyamdeo Prasad (present petitioner) had filed an application under S. 125 of the Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan for grant of maintenance to her and also to her second son. She has contended that she was legally married wife of the present petitioner and her marriage was performed about 14 years ago. After her marriage she started living with the petitioner at his house as his wife and two sons were born to her out of this wedlock. After some time her relationship with the petitioner became strained as the petitioner being a truck driver had fallen in bad company. On 25-11-92 she was assaulted by the petitioner and his family members and was driven out of the house, since then she is leading a miserable life along with her second son having no source of income. The petitioner being a truck driver was earning Rs. 1500/- per month besides also having landed property. Hence she claimed Rs. 1,000 per month as her maintenance.

(3.) The petitioner has contested her claim for claim of maintenance. He has contended that she was an corrupt lady and after giving birth of her first son she got entangled with one Baharan Ram and got illicit relationship with him and also others of her Naihar where she was leading a life of adultery. Opposite party No. 2 started residing at her father's place since 1988 and in spite of repeated requests refused to come and live with the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that he was only an casual labourer and was not a truck driver as alleged. He has got only 4 Katha of land the income from which is not sufficient even for his own livelihood.