CHAMPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.4.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2000 whereby and where under the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh set aside the order 1.12.1999 passed in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 1991 by SDJM. Koderma.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this instant application are that Champa Devi who is petitioner of this case, had filed a Maintenance Case. No. 33 of 1991 stating therein that she is legally wedded wife of O.P. No. 2 and marriage was solemnized in the year 1969 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs and ten months after solemnisation of marriage, Rokhsaddi was done and after Rokhsaddi this petitioner went with her husband to her sasural and living with O.P. No. 2 as husband and wife. After marriage O.P. No. 2 maintains her properly for some years, but thereafter he made a demand of Rs. 5,000.00 as dowry which father of the petitioner was due to poverty unable to meet. In the year 1983 O.P. No. 2, and mother -in -law of this petitioner always abused her and did not provide foot, etc. The petitioner lodged a complaint about this with her father, then her father came to her sasural and persuaded them, but still the persuasion did not have any effect on them and thereafter they started assaulting the petitioner. In the third month of 1983 she became pregnant and she was not maintaining good health and on 1.6.1983 of O.P. No. 2 assaulted her and drove her out, compelled by the circumstances petitioner came to her naihar and her father got her treated properly. In the month of Aghan 1983 petitioner gave birth to a male child. She named him Abhimanyu Pandey and this Abhimanyu Pandey is residing properly. The petitioner again went with her father to her sasural, but O.P. No. 2, and his mother did not allow her to enter the house and drove her out, as a result of which she is living in her naihar. O.P. No. 2 is rich agriculturist. In this maintenance case, a notice was issued and the O.P. No. 2 appeared as O.P. and the petitioner led evidenced and thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order and allowed Rs. 400.00 to the petitioner and Rs. 400.00 to her son Abhimanyu Pandey but a sum of Rs. 400.00 to her son was allowed till he attains majority. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 1991 O.P. No. 2 preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2000 and the learned Revisional Court after hearing the parties allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 1.12.1999.

(3.) ON perusal of material on record, it is clear that petitioner is a legally married wife of O.P. No. 2 and that the only allegation levelled against her is that she leads an adulterous life, but that has not been proved by the O.P. No. 2, and there is no cogent evidence on this point and there fore, she is entitled a maintenance along with her son as per order dated 1.12.1999 passed in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 1991. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 8.4.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2000, is hereby set aside and the order passed in Maintenance Case No. 33 of 1991 is hereby restored.