RANJEET RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this revision application against the order dated 31.3.2010 passed in maintenance case No. 141 of 2006 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh, whereby he has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month towards current maintenance allowance to opposite party No. 2, namely Sumitra Devi and also directed to pay further sum of Rs. 2,000 towards the arrears of maintenance allowance, total being 4,000 per month, till the entire payment of arrears maintenance.

(2.) The applicant-opposite party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure against Petitioner, Ranjit Ram for payment of Rs. 12,500 towards her monthly maintenance allowance. Her case, in brief, is that she had been married with the Petitioner on 16.5.1993 according to Hindu rites. Thereafter, she started living with the Petitioner as wife and husband at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that sometime after the marriage, the Petitioner and his family members started torturing opposite party No. 2 for dowry. They told her that they would not keep her in their house and ultimately she was dragged from the matrimonial house on 21.12.1998 and since then she is living with her parents. In January, 1999, the Petitioner is alleged to have married another lady Ranju Devi of village Rajpur and they are living as husband and wife at the Petitioner's house. It is further stated that the petition is a Government servant employed in Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna and is getting more than Rs. 15,000 per month. It is also stated that he has a business from which he is also earning Rs. 15,000 per month. On 27.4.2000, an agreement was executed between the parties, and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the Petitioner agreed to pay half of his remuneration to opposite party No. 2, as he was then temporary staff getting only Rs. 4,500 per month. He paid Rs. 2,000 per month to the applicant-opposite party No. 2 for her livelihood from October, 2002 to August, 2004. Thereafter, he stopped payment of any amount. As the parents of the Petitioner are very poor and are not in a position to maintain her for a long time having no means, opposite party No. 2 asked the Petitioner to provide her some money in Decemuer, 2006, but the Petitioner did not provide any money for her maintenance. This is why she filed the instant case claiming maintenance from him.

(3.) The Petitioner appeared and filed show-cause on 15.3.2007 denying all the allegations. He denied his marriage with the opposite party No. 2. It is stated in the show-cause that opposite party No. 2 is in the habit of implicating persons on false allegations for the purpose of blackmailing them. It is stated that she had earlier married once with Surendra Ram whom she left after some years. It is stated that opposite party No. 2 lodged a criminal case against the Petitioner and his family members under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The manner of alleged occurrence given in the said case is quite different from the allegations made by her in her petition filed under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure.