LEELA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against Order dated 24-1- 2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 92 of 1998 whereby the leaned Judge Magistrate dismissed the petition for maintenance filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners on the ground that the same was not maintainable.

(2.) THE brief facts are that an application under Section 124 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by the petitioners against the opposite party No. 2 herein namely Pradeep Kumar Choudhary for grant of maintenance in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Manisha Choudhary and Payal Choudhary respectively who were the minor daughters of the opposite party No. 2 (Pradeep Kumar Choudhary) born out of the wedlock of the opposite party No. 2 (Pradeep Kumar Choudhary) and Sarika Choudhary (since deceased), the mother of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 namely Smt. Leela Yadav. The petitioner No. 1 is the maternal grandmother (Nani) of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 who at the time of making application were aged 9 years and 6 years respectively. According to the petitioners, the marriage of Smt. Sarika Choudhary i.e. the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Leela Yadav was solemnized with the opposite party No. 2 (Pradeep Kumar Choudhary) on 19-2-1988, who was an employee of TISCO Tubes Division. Out of their wedlock, two daughters namely Manisha Choudhary and Payal Choudhary were born who are the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein respectively.

(3.) IT was said that the opposite party No. 2 Pradeep Kumar Choudhary, who was an E.S.S. Employee of the TISCO Tubes Division, was drawing Rs. 5,000/- per month but he was neglecting and not maintaining his two daughters namely petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and accordingly, the prayer was made for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month each for the minor applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The prayer for grant of maintenance was objected to by the opposite party No. 2, mainly on the ground that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, as the petitioner No. 1 had no locus standi to pray for grant of maintenance on behalf of the two minor daughters of the opposite party No. 2 because she was not the lawful guardian of those two minors.