SUBHAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The etitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 13-8-1996 passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1994, preferred by Opposite Party No. 2, challenging the order dated 7-3-1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 556 of 1994 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the petitioner was allowed monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300 and Rs. 100 each to the son and daughter, has approached this Court and has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the revisional order dated 13-8-1996, insofar as it refused the monthly allowance of Rs. 300 to the petitioner, be quashed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in the application under Section 125 Cr. PC., which was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj on 9-8-1990 and was eventually transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj is that the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were married in May, 1983 according to the Hindu rites and as a result of consummation of marriage, she gave birth to a son, and two daughters, one of whom is dead. According to the petitioner, she was driven out by her husband in February, 1990, as he and his father demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 which could not be fulfilled by the petitioner because her father is a poor person. The petitioner claims to be living with her father and she has no means of earning livelihood so as to maintain herself and her two children. It is claimed that the husband of the petitioner has an Oil Expellor and a Flour Mill from which he earns about Rs. 2,000 per month, but refused to maintain the petitioner and her children. Therefore, she claimed a sum of Rs. 500 as maintenance for herself and Rs. 200 each for her two children.

(3.) The opposite party No. 2 admitted the marriage, but denied to have driven out the petitioner from his house and also denied the alleged demand of Rs. 10,000 and claimed that she is living with one Ramlal San in adultery