JAGDISH PRASAD HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 67 of 2005 by which the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 under section 125 Crimial P.C., 1973 was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000.00 per month in favour of the opposite party No.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has attacked the impugned order by submitting that there was no valid marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party No. 2 in view of the subsisting marriage of the opposite party No. 2 with one Babu Lal Murmu. Both the parties are governed by Hindu law and therefore the purported divorce based on customary law is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the learned court below has drawn an inference about the divorce with Babu Lal Murmu and held that there was a valid marriage solemnized by the opposite party No. 2 with the petitioner. In support of his contention that the opposite party No. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636.