RAM BHAROSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing order dated 30.1.2001 passed in Maintenance Case No. 36 of 1994 (Trial No. 518/2001) by the Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, whereby the court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/ - per month as maintenance to the applicant 'sminor son Bishwajeet. This order has been passed on. an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant, mother of the child. The court below has directed grant of maintenance from the date of the application till attainment of majority by the said Bishwajeet. By the same order the court below has rejected the applicant 'sprayer for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for reasons of an exparte decree for divorce obtained by the petitioner in Matrimonial Case No. 3/94 against the applicant on the ground of adultery is provided for in Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE fact of marriage between the parties and that Bishwajeet is the minor son of the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner also admits his liability to pay maintenance for his minor son. The petitioner however contends that the award of maintenance to the minor child Bishwajeet from the date of application i.e. 5.9.1994 would operate onerously on him. The petitioner contends that he is a poor man with meagre income and that he would not be in a position to comply with the order of the Court.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the opposite party i.e. the mother has filed a counter affidavit. It has been stated therein that the applicant had filed Complaint Case no. 50/ 90 on 16.2.90 against the petitioner under Section 498A iPC in which cognizance was taken. The petitioner and other accused therein then appeared and offered to compromise the matter by agreeing to keep the applicant at home with due respect. The Complaint Case no. 50/90 was thus disposed of on 8.5.1992 by learned CJM Sasaram in terms of the compromise. It has been stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner and his family members again started torturing the applicant when she was compelled to file Maintenance Case no. 36/94. Further she was left with no alternative for the sustenance of herself and her son who was three years old at the relevant time. It is worthy to note that even in the Matrimonial Case no. 3/94 the applicant had appeared in the case, filed written statements and denied the allegation. Quite obviously she was not in a position to economically contest the case given the fact that she had a minor child to look after also. The applicant has further stated that the petitioner has an income of Rs. 5000/ - per month.