SARWAN KUMAR SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision application is directed against the order dated 4 -9 -2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad passed the order allowing the maintaiance of Rs. 500/ - per month to the opposite party No. 2 in connection with M. P. Case No. 21, 1998.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to this revision is that Manju Devi, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintaince claiming therein that she was married with the petitioner, Sarwan Kumar Sao, according to Hindu rites and customs about 20 years ago. One daughter and four sons were also born out of their wedlock. The relationship between the husband and wife -were cordially peaceful for about 12 years but later on the petitioner started ill treating and neglecting the wife Opposite Party No. 2 and also his children and thereafter the petitioner driven away the Opposite Party No. 2 and her children from the house, whereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the petition for maintenance. The petitioner also filed show cause in the Court below denying the allegation and claimed that the Opposite Party No. 2 had developed illicit relation with one Manik saw and had eloped with him after taking her children and entire personal belonging including gold. The mother of the petitioner had also filed a criminal case before the A.C.J.M. Koderma, which was registered as Koderma PS case No. 38/1997. It is further alleged that Manju Devi has been residing with the said Manik Saw since 1990 and she had entered into a contract of marriage with Manik Saw and to this effect one affidavit has also been executed on 3 -7 -1990 before the Notary Public, Bihar Sharif. It is further alleged, that the Opposite Party No. 2 has been running a hotel with the assistance of her mother and her children near the Railway Station and earning substantial income whereas the petitioner is a petty Bhuja Seller earning hardly Rs. 50/ - per day and, therefore, the petitioner has no obligation to provide any maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2 Manju Devi.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party contended before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned as the Court below rightly passed the order allowing the maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2 who has no income for her livelihood as well as she is having five children and their inability is also with the lady Opposite Party No. 2. It is further argued that the whole allegation about residing with Manik Saw is false and fabricated and on this score the Court below discussed the entire matter in detail and the Court below came to a definite conclusion that the Opposite Party No 2 and her three minor children have no sufficient means for their substance and has rightly passed the order allowing the maintenance, which is not excessive.