KRISHNA MURARI PATHAK ALIAS LALAN PATHAK Vs. LESARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the petitioner Krishna Murari Pathak alias Lalan Pathak against the order passed on 20-1 1978 by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 100 per month to the mother of two boys named Nakul and Sahadeo under the provision of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present application are as follows. The opposite-party Smt. Lesari filed an application under section 488 of the Code in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistral Siwan, alleging that she was married to Rambali Gond and the petitioner was married with Lalta Devi who, according to her, was physically incapable of functioning as wife. Hence she used to remain at her Naihar and the petitioner had divorced her and she had accepted it. The case of the opposite party further is that she worked as maid servant in the house of the petitioner where she developed intimacy with the petitioner and on that account her husband had suspected her and divorced her. According to her, the petitioner proposed marriage and she accepted and they were married in Arya Samaj Mandir and thereafter started living as husband and wife as a result of which two boys were horn of her by the petitioner who are named Nakul and Sahdeo. According to her the petitioner subsequently became drunkard and began assaulting her and ultimately she was turned out of his house. On these allegations she had claimed Rs. 250 per month by way of maintenance under section 488 of the Code.

(3.) The petitioner, on the other hand, denied all the allegations made by her as according to him, there was never any divorce between him and his wife nor the opposite-party was ever divorced by her husband (Rambali Gond) and that she was living with her said husband by whom she had four sons, named Arjun Bhim, Nakul and Sahdeo and that there was never any cohabitation 'between the pettioner and the opposite party and hence there was no question of any issue to the opposite party by the petitioner. In short, the petitioner totally denied all the allegations made by the opposite-party which, according to the petitioner, were done at the instance of his enemies.