TARKESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Pramila Devi (Respondent No.7) filed a maintenance case bearing Maintenance Case No.100(M) of 2009 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna on 22.05.2009 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/ - from the petitioner. Her case is that the petitioner happens to be her husband, who is employed as Circle Inspector in Chandauti Block in the district of Gaya. Her marriage was held in 1976 and out of wedlock, one son and two daughters were born. The two daughters have already been married and the son is being maintained by her husband. In due course of time, the petitioner subjected her to cruelty due to various reasons. Ultimately, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house in 1993 and since then she is living separately with her younger brother and family members. Thereafter, the petitioner has married another lady and has completely neglected her. Her further case is that the petitioner has sufficient means as he is in government service whereas she being an unemployed lady has no means to support herself.

(2.) IT has been contended that after filing of the aforesaid maintenance case, the petitioner received a legal notice sent on 24.02.2010 by respondent no.6 apprising the petitioner of filing of the maintenance case against him for monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/ -. After receiving the legal notice, the petitioner went to the civil court, Patna and entrusted vakalatnama to his lawyer. On perusal of the record of the case by the petitioner's counsel, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that one Binay Kumar Sinha (Respondent No.6) has already filed a vakalatnama, alleged to be executed by the petitioner, with a petition on 13th December, 2010, seeking time for filing of written statement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said Binay Kumar Sinha (Respondent no.6) has himself sent the legal notice to the petitioner on behalf of respondent no.7 and forged signature of the petitioner on the vakalatnama and filed the same in order to appear on behalf of the petitioner. It has been contended that on 10th January, 2011 the petitioner filed an application in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna praying therein to dismiss the aforesaid maintenance case and also to take legal action against respondent no.7 and her advocate respondent no.6 but the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not taken any action against respondent nos.6 and 7. In this background, the petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : -