SANTOSH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the impugned orders dated 19.12.2015 and 14.07.2016 have been passed in Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2016 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Araria whereby the learned Judge directed the son of the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Sundari Devi. Subsequently by order dated 14.07.2016, the learned Judge directed Santosh Jha, the father of Rakesh Jha, to pay the dues of maintenance amount.

(3.) A brief fact of this case is that opposite party no.2 Sundari Devi filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Araria on 25.11.2014. Notice was issued to her husband but the notice was not served and it was reported that it could not be served. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Araria proceeded ex-parte. In the meanwhile, the present petitioner, father of the husband of Sundari Devi appeared before the court on 09.09.2015 with a petition that his son is undergoing treatment at Central Institute of Psychiatric, Kanke, Ranchi as an indoor patient as suffering from mental illness but the learned Judge proceeded further in the matter and concluded the proceeding ex-parte directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife. As the maintenance amount was not being paid so a petition was filed by the present petitioner that his son is still suffering from mental illness. By order dated 14.07.2016, guardian of the husband was directed to pay the maintenance amount. Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner has challenged both the orders in these criminal revision applications.