JAWED AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2010/T.R. No. 654 of 2013, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month to his deserted wife and also Rs. 3,000/- per month to his minor daughter living with her mother, for their maintenance from the date of the petition.

(2.) The impugned order shows that the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. was filed by the opposite party No. 2 claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of the wedlock a daughter was born which is about 8 years old. Subsequently, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of money and the petitioner married another lady on 19.7.2009. It is also stated that she was not able to maintain herself and her daughter, whereas the petitioner is having a medicine shop and he is also working as a Journalist and having the income of Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- per month. The petition was accordingly, filed for maintenance.

(3.) It further appears from the impugned order that the petitioner appeared in the Court below and filed his show-cause in which the marriage between the parties and the birth of the daughter from the wedlock are admitted facts. It is also admitted that the petitioner had married another lady with whom also he has issues, but the case of the petitioner is that prior to the marriage he had divorced his first wife, which fact was denied by the opposite party No. 2 in the Court below. The petitioner also admitted that he was having a medicine shop, but he claimed that he was having income of only Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per day from the said medicine shop and he had no other source of income. The petitioner denied the liability to make the maintenance of opposite party No. 2, as she was already divorced, and according to the Muslim Law and she was not entitled to maintenance. With these averments the petitioner denied the liability to make the payment of maintenance to the opposite party No. 2.