ANIL KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1975 (in short the 'Code'). It is directed against the order dated 15-9-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in Maintenance Case No. 19 of 1984 (Indumati Jha v. Anil Kumar Jha) by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the claim of ad interim maintenance of opposite party No. 2 and ordered the petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.300.00- per month.

(2.) It appears that the aforesaid maintenance case was started on the basis of an application filed by opposite party No. 2 under S. 125 of the Code in which she alleged that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner. The marriage was solemnised on 11-12-1980 at Manihari and since thereafter she was living with the petitioner as his wife. However, the behaviour of the petitioner towards opposite party No.2 was good. He had started torturing her in various ways and was demanding a sum of Rs.51,000.00- and a car from her father. Opposite party No. 2 also levelled allegation of cruelty and ill-behaviour against the petitioner and had stated that the petitioner was having illicit connection with some other woman. An attempt to get good relationship resorted between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 failed on 10-2-1984. Opposite party No. 2 was turned out from the house of the petitioner in presence of her father with a threatening that if she would return back without arranging for the money and car she would be done to death. The father of opposite party No. 2 is a retired person unable to maintain his daughter (opposite party No. 2). The petitioner is a man of means and is employed as I. O. W. (Special) Railways. Hence opposite party No. 2 claimed maintenance for a sum of Rs. 500.00 per month from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner had appeared before the learned Court below and had denied these allegations. He further contended that his parents-in-law started visiting him regularly at Sahibganj and they demanded money from him. On his refusal, his father-in-law took away opposite party No. 2 to his village without consent of the petitioner. When the petitioner sent his younger brother for Bedai in February, 1983, the parents-in-law refused to send her. Opposite party No. 2 is an educated lady and she is able to maintain herself. The petitioner receives only one thousand rupees as pay and has to maintain his family members. During the course of trial witnesses were examined and on 7-9-1989 opposite party No. 2 filed an application for an order of ad interim maintenance. On the following day a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for an adjournment to enable him to file the rejoinder. The learned Court below refused to grant time for filing rejoinder without giving any cogent reason and fixed ad interim maintenance to opposite party No. 2 by his impugned order dated 15-9-1989.