DHANI RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment impugned dated 26.2.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Rev. No. 61 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the revisional court confirmed the judgment and order dated 14.8.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla in a proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby a sum of Rs. 4001 - per month was allowed to the opposite party No. 2 directing the petitioner to pay regularly since the date of the order.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case was that the opposite party No. 2 Sulochani Devi was married 10 the petitioner Dhani Ram Sahu in the month of January, 1983 according to their custom and usage and thereafter, they led their conjugal life peacefully for two years. It was alleged that in the year 1986 the petitioner solemnized second marriage with one Gomati Deyi and began to live with her. Soon thereafter, the petitioner and his second wife, Gomati Devi started perpetrating torture in various manner to Sulochani Devi and demanded dowry of Rs. 50,0001 - and in this connection she was subjected to assault and finally she was driven out in the year 1988 from her matrimonial home by the petitioner. Finding no way out she shifted to her parental home but without assistance or maintenance from the petitioner whatsoever. It was asserted that the petitioner was a school teacher in Government school with substantial salary, besides his income from agricultural properties. Under such backdrop the opposite party No. 2 Sulochani Devi demanded and claimed to Rs. 30001 - per month maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The defence of the petitioner in his causes shown was that the opposite party NO.2 was serving in his house as maid servant from 1983 to 1986 and thereafter her parents took her away to their house on 27.1.1986. The petitioner outrightly denied his marriage with the opposite party NO.2. It was further asserted by the petitioner that Gomati Devi was tenant in his house since July, 1983 and not his wife. The petitioner further asserted that during service of Sulochani Devi in his house, working as maid servant, her due wages were paid and as such, she was not entitled for maintenance being not the wife of the petitioner.

(3.) THE revisional court of 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla affirmed the findings of fact by the Trial Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Cr. Rev. No. 61 of 2000 with the following observation: -