RANI SINHA Vs. RAM RATAN PRASAD VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). It is directed against the order dated 9.1.1997 passed in Case No. 26(M) of 1993/Tr. No. 214/97 by Shri Brajendra Kumar Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif by which the learned Magistrate had rejected the petition under Section 125 of the Code filed by the petitioner for her maintenance as also for the maintenance of her minor daughter.

(2.) It appears that the present petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code for her maintenance as also for the maintenance of her minor daughter. She had contended that she was married to the opposite party on 25.2.1988 in accordance with Hindu rituals and after some time the second marriage (Duragaman) Was also performed. She started living with her husband (opposite party) and on 6.6.1990 a daughter was born to them. At the time of her marriage, ornaments worth Rs. 15,000/ - as also various articles worth Rs. 50,000/ - were given to the petitioner as dowry. This, however, did not satisfy the opposite party who was insisting to bring one motorcycle which the petitioner's father was not able to comply. Accordingly on 18.7.1993, the opposite party assaulted the petitioner and drove her out of the house as a result of which she came to the house of her mother. The opposite party is a teacher in a Government School on a salary of Rs. 3,300/ - per month. Apart from it, he is also earning Rs. 1,000/ - from his cultivation. As such the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 500/ - towards her maintenance as also the maintenance of her minor daughter.

(3.) In the show -cause, the opposite party went to the extent of falsely indulging in the character assassination of the petitioner. The petitioner examined several witnesses but they were not cross -examined due to the absence of the opposite party and the petitioner closed her evidence on 9.5.1996. Argument on her behalf was also heard by the Court, The opposite party had absented himself for long and he filed Criminal Revision No. 195/95 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda who allowed the same and permitted the opposite party to cross -examine the witnesses of the petitioner. Accordingly, those P.Ws. were cross -examined. The opposite party also examined four witnesses from 20.11.1996 to 27.11.1996, but the petitioner could not get them cross -examined as she could not give instructions to her lawyer due to the circumstances noted below. The petitioner has alleged that in the meantime, on 6.11.1996 the opposite party got the minor daughter of the petitioner kidnapped by a notorious criminal Bipin Kumar with the object of selling her kidney. The petitioner lodged at Bihar (Sohsarai) P.S. case No. 394/96 dated 7.11.1996 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to the aforesaid circumstances and also on account of fear, the petitioner was not able to contact her lawyer and to instruction him for the cross -examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party. Hence, they were discharged without being cross -examined. The opposite party particularly managed this kidnapping only to put pressure on the petitioner.