PRADEEP PRASAD CHOURASIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application against the order dated 12.10.2009.passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Misc. case No. 70/07 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the said court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant-opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 1000/ - per month to her daughter, in total Rs. 3000/ - per month from the date of the order.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared before the trial court and filed his show cause stating that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is not maintainable as the applicant-opposite party No. 2 is not his legally married wife but only a talk of marriage was going on between the guardians of the parties. The marriage was not actually solemnized at any point of time. He has further submitted that the applicant-opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of his step brother, Lalit Prasad Chourasia. Therefor, he is not liable to pay maintenance to her. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has married one Neera Devi and is living with her.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, Mr. Nilesh Kumar has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 was performed in 1987-88 and both were residing as husband and wife. In 1990 a son was born and in 1993 a daughter was also born from the said wedlock. But, after the birth of the second child, the petitioner started misbehaving with the opposite party No. 2 and ultimately married another lady, Neera Devi and tried to drive out the present opposite party No. 2 from his house. A panchayati was also held in this regard. Ultimately in 2006 the petitioner and his second wife drove out this applicant-opposite party No. 2 along with her two children from their house. The opposite party No. 2 is maintaining herself and her two children by cleaning utensils etc. in other's house and is earning a very meager amount. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has got a watch shop and from the said business, he earns a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - per month. Further more, he is getting Rs. 3000/ - per month from the shop which he has given on rent to other person and also earning a sum of Rs. 5000/ - from his agricultural land. In support of her contention regarding relationship between her and the petitioner the opposite party No. 2 has filed two documents i.e. ext. 1, voter I.D. card and ext. 2, admit card of her son, Ritesh Kumar. She has also examined three witnesses in support of her case. PW1 is her mother-in-law, PW 2 herself and PW3, is Zafruddin Khalifa