SAMOD PASWAN @ SUBODH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2, the complainant wife, who has appeared through advocate.

(2.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 20th September 2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in M.P. Case No. 196 of 2009, whereby, in an ex-parte proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opp. Party No.2. The impugned order also shows that the proceeding was taken ex-parte as because the petitioner did not appear in spite of notice.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, I find that according to the opposite party No.2 herself, she was married to the petitioner on 20.4.2008 and her husband is having two wives and there is a child aged eight years. This child aged eight years cannot be the child of the petitioner and as such, the child who is aged eight years must be the child of the first wife of the husband and the opposite party No.2 is the second wife of her husband. The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the wife having the eight year old child might be the widow having child from before this marriage, cannot be entertained at this stage as this fact ought to have been pleaded and proved by the opposite party No.2 in the Court below. This having not been done, no such inference can be drawn in her favour.