SAHEB SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this Cr. Revision for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 102 of 2006 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/ - to his wife O.P. No. 2 and Rs.1,000/ - to her minor daughter O.P. NO.3 per month as interim maintenance till the disposal of the case and further to pay Rs.2,000/ - being the litigation cost in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C.

(2.) PROCEEDING under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was initiated on the instance of the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the O.P. NO.2 was married to the petitioner on 14.11 .2004 at Jamshedpur but after marriage when she came to her matrimonial home, it was alleged that the petitioner -husband and her in -laws started ill -treating and misbehaving her. Yet, out of wedlock she became pregnant in the month of April, 2005 and even -during her pregnancy it was alleged that the petitioner used to perpetrate mental cruelty by extending threat to divorce her. It was further alleged that in the month of August, 2005 the petitioner demanded a substantial sum to be brought from her parental home and pursuant to that she came to her parental home where she delivered a female child. After a month thereafter the petitioner visited and she was taken to her matrimonial home on 5.2.2006 where she found her ornaments made of gold missing which she had kept in "Almirah". She alleged that when she enquired about her jewelleries, the petitioner became furious. It was further alleged that there was none to take care of her and the baby child. Even she was deprived of her food and clothes. The petitioner on her arrival started demanding Rs.5 lakhs and on 22.4.2006 also she was abused and tortured in various ways. The O.P. No. 2 in support of her claim stated that the petitioner had earning of Rs.20,000/ - per month and that she required Rs.8,0001 - per month to meet out minimum needs of herself and for the daughter O.P0. NO.3 and also Rs.3,0001. being the litigation cost.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel advancing his argument submitted that the petitioner had presented a Matrimonial Suit No. 141 of 2006 before the Principal Judge, Family Court. Jamshedpur under Section 13(1 )(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce against the O.P. NO.2.