DEBASHISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Miscellaneous Case no. 88 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the present opposite party no.2 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the minor son till he attained majority and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

(2.) On an application filed by the opposite party no.2 along with her minor son under Section 125 of the Code, the aforesaid miscellaneous case was instituted on the facts that the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage was solemnized on 09.12.1993 according to the Hindu Rights and Custom and dowry in different forms was given to the petitioner and she came to her matrimonial home but during her stay at her matrimonial home, the family members of the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain and other items knowingful well that the father of opposite party no.2 died before her marriage and brother was looking after her. It is alleged that even after a son born to her, neither the petitioner nor his family members amended themselves and opposite party no.2 was regularly tortured. On 28.01.2002, the petitioner and other family members assaulted the opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfillment of their demands of dowry and she was ousted along with her newly born son. It is alleged that since after her ouster, she has been staying with her brother and the petitioner even after her request, neglected her intentionally and refused to maintain the opposite part no.2 and her son.

(3.) It appears from the record that after appearance in the court below, the petitioner filed his show-cause admitting the fact that the opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and the son born out of their wedlock but denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torture rather the petitioner stated in the show-cause that the opposite party no.2 is living in adultery with one Suresh Verma. Hence she is not entitled to any maintenance and a matrimonial suit bearing no. 10 of 2002 was also filed at the instance of the petitioner in the court of District Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and besides that one complaint was also filed against the opposite party no.2. Lastly, the case of the petitioner was that he has got no independent source of income rather he is looking after the business of his parents and he is dependent on them. It further appears that both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidences whereafter the court below upon scrutinizing and appreciating the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties held that the opposite party no.2 along with her minor son are living separately and they are entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, the court below granted the maintenance as indicated above.