JAIPAL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN view of nature of order that is going to be passed, this Court does not see the expediency to notice opposite party no. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.1.2008, passed by Principal judge, Family Court West Champaran at Bettiah in Maintenance Case No. 83 of 2004/331 of 2005, whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - in all as maintenance towards opp. party no. 2 Lal Pari Devi who claimed to be his wife as well as opp. parties 3 and 4. namely, Sangita Kumari and Sudhir Kumar who were born from the aforesaid wedlock.

(3.) IT is admitted position that the petitioner was earlier married to one Sonamati Devi who did not give birth to a male child. During her lifetime, the petitioner married Lal Pari Devi with her consent and full knowledge that first wife was alive. By the alleged marriage two children, namely, opp. parties 3 and 4 were born.