(1.) THIS petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order impugned dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Misc. Case No. 132 of 2008 by which ad -interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/ - per month from the date of the order was allowed to the wife -opposite party No. 2 and her daughter. In addition to that a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - lump sum was also awarded being the litigation cost.
(2.) A proceeding was initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal 10/Procedure 5/2014 Page 56 at the instance of the complainant -opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner - husband. Marriage between the parties was not denied and a female child was born to them out of their wedlock. It was alleged that after 17 years of their marriage, the O.P. No. 2 was driven out with her daughter from her matrimonial home by raising demand of a cow and cash of Rs. 20,000/ - and also ill -treating her. Finding no way out, the complainant -opposite party No. 2 took shelter at her mother's house. Disclosing the source of income of her husband, the complainant -opposite party No. 2 stated that he had been earning of Rs. fifteen thousand per month by selling milk apart from agricultural income. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner - husband appeared and filed show cause stating that he was a poor daily wage earner having earning of Rs. 50/ - per day by manufacturing Bidi which cannot be held to be his substantial earning. He had further asserted that neither he had dairy nor having earning of Rs. 15,000/ - by selling milk, nor he had land either in the village or in the town in his name so as to part with the awarded amount. Nevertheless, he was ready to keep and maintain his wife.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner insisted that notice may be directed to be issued to the O.P. No.2 for her appearance so that the process of reconciliation may be effected as the husband -petitioner was ready to keep and maintain his wife with all dignity and honour according to his capacity. But I find from the order impugned that conciliation process was undertaken by the Principal Judge, Family Court during the proceeding wherein the petitioner had orally admitted the second marriage and the wife O.P. No.2 under such circumstances refused to live with him.