BULA ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. Opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in spite of service of notice upon him. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26th April, 2001, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1995/35 of 2000, whereby, revision application filed against the order dated 27.9.1995 passed by Mr. C.B. Dwivedi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1994/Trial No. 528 of 1995, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of opposite party No. 2, stating that the marriage had taken place on 20.8.2012 at Kolkata and after the marriage she stayed with her husband, but she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. There are allegations of assaults also and it is stated that ultimately the petitioner was driven out of her matrimonial home and she started living with her parents since the year 1993. Claiming that she had no means to maintain herself whereas her husband has sufficient means, she filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming the maintenance of Rs. 500 per month.

(3.) IT appears that both the parties entered into the evidence and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner, who were the petitioner and her father. They supported their case stating that the petitioner was married to opposite party No. 2 at Kolkata, in which, the Pandit and barber were arranged by the opposite party No. 2. Though it was deposed that other relatives of the petitioner also attended the marriage, but no relative of the b petitioner was examined. The petitioner even could not disclose the place where she was married at Kolkata. It also appears from the impugned judgment that she produced, a photograph, but the same could only be marked for identification and it could not be proved. Some other documents including c telegram were also exhibited by the petitioner, but they were not on the point of the marriage.