AMARNATH SAHANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Maintenance Case No. 95 of 2000 is aggrieved by order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. -I, East Champaran at Motihari, in Criminal Revision No. 377 of 2004, whereby he has affirmed and modified the order dated 4.9.2004 passed by Sri Jaiganesh Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Motihari, in the aforesaid Maintenance Case whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - per month as maintenance to his wife and daughter from the date of the institution of the case and has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid two orders. The modification by the revisional court was to the effect that the amount of maintenance was payable from the date of the order and not from the date of the institution of the case.

(2.) IT appears that the instant application against the opposite party No. 2, i.e., the applicant -wife stood dismissed for non -compliance of the order dated 19.12.2006 issuing notice to her and the case has proceeded only against the State. The wife Siya Devi filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2000 praying therein that the opposite party -husband be directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ - per month as maintenance to her and her daughter.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner herein is that when the claim of the applicant was for Rs. 1,000/ - per month jointly for herself and her daughter, the learned Magistrate had erred in directing for the payment of Rs. 1,500/ - for the wife and Rs. 1,000/ - for the daughter and this by itself would be an abuse of the process of the court. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the conduct of the learned Magistrate who had examined only four witnesses including the complainant and her father to decide the matter. It was sought to be submitted that all the four witnesses examined gave different and contradictory statements regarding the lands and income of the petitioner and the learned Magistrate relying solely on the oral testimony of the witnesses and without verifying the truth of the same came to the conclusion that the petitioner had an income of Rs. 20,000/ - from agriculture and Rs. 50,000/ - from fishing rights. Referring to the deposition of C.W. Shambhu Shahni, he pointed out that in course of examination this witness has stated that the petitioner has 3 and 1/2 bighas of land whereas P.W. 3, Basudeo Shahni, the father of the applicant has stated that the petitioner has 2 and 1/2 bighas of land and the applicant Siya Devi has stated that the petitioner has 4 bighas of land and these have not been supported by documentary evidence which apparently creates suspicion in the minds.