BULBULI DUTTA Vs. SUBODH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claim of maintenance by the petitioner for herself and her unfortunate minor daughter, has led her to knock the door of the justice, even by way of this petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for exercise of inherent power of this Court.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner filed a petition u/s 125 Cr. P.C. praying for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter from the respondent Sri Subodh Datta. The parties are the residence of Rangapara Town, under Rangapara P.S. in the district of Sonitpur. It is stated in her application for maintenance that they were in love affairs and as a result of sexual intercourse between the minor girl was begotten. It is further stated that on 01.06.90, the respondent married the petitioner by putting vermilion on her forehead, and although the petitioner is the married wife of the respondent and the respondent is the father of the minor child, he has failed and neglected to pay any maintenance to the petitioner and her daughter, leading to the innumerable hardships to her. The petitioner, accordingly is staying in her parents' house and is living on the mercy of others. The petition for maintenance was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 13/92. Notice having been served, the respondent appeared and submitted his written statement denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondent specifically denied his marriage with the petitioner. It was also denied that he is the father of the minor daughter of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note herein that along with aforesaid application for maintenance two photocopies of documents dated 01.06.90 and 15.01.92, allegedly written by the respondent, were also submitted. In the said document dated 01.06.90 it is stated that the second party admitted that he married the first party by putting vermilion on her forehead and the document dated 15.01.92 discloses that a minor child was begotten to the 1 st party/petitioner through the second party/ Respondent. The petitioner agreed to maintain the first party as per documents dated 01.06.90. These two documents are available on records.

(3.) During the course of trial, the petitioner/ first party examined four witnesses whereas the second party examined himself in support of his case. Upon consideration and appreciation of the materials and evidence on record, the learned Magistrate held that the petitioner/First party failed to prove the marriage and also failed to prove that the second party/respondent is the father of the minor child and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the maintenance. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner filed Criminal revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sonitpur which was registered as Criminal Motion No. 9 (S-1) 93. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.04.96 dismissed the said criminal revision.