- (1.)The Petitioner, who is husband of opposite party No. 2, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa in Cr. Revision No. 27 of 1999, whereby he had allowed the revision preferred by opposite party No. 2 filed against the order dated 3.6.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hilsa in Case No. 32M of 1997. The learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, by its order dated 31.7.2001, has directed the Petitioner to make payment of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 400/- for her daughter. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by its order dated 3.6.1999, had rejected the petition filed by opposite party No. 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.)The opposite party No. 2, wife of Petitioner, had initially filed a petition before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Maintenance Case No. 32M of 1997 stating therein that she was married with the Petitioner according to Hindu customs and thereafter, she started to live with her husband as wife in her in-laws house and out of said wedlock one daughter, namely, Khushbu Kumari born. However, after the birth of the daughter, she was not properly treated in her in-laws house and finally she was ousted with her daughter and she came to her parents house. Criminal case was also filed against husband and others. Since the parents of the opposite party No. 2 were not capable of maintaining the opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 2 filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosing therein that the Petitioner's annual income was about Rs. 15,000/- from toddy business and also he was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month from his private job at Delhi. Accordingly, she claimed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 600/- per month for her daughter. In the said proceeding, after issuance of notice, the Petitioner appeared and he took the stand that the opposite party No. 2 had willfully started to live with her parent and she was assisting her parent in their toddy business. It was also stand of the Petitioner that the opposite party No. 2 was capable of maintaining herself and her daughter. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hilsa rejected the maintenance case i.e. Maintenance Case No. 32M of 1997. Against the rejection of the case i.e. Maintenance Case No. 32M of 1997, the opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision vide Criminal Revision No. 27 of 1999.
(3.)After hearing the parties, the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa allowed the revision petition by its order dated 31.7.2001 and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month allowance for maintenance of opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 400/- per month for her daughter, namely, Khushbu Kumari. The Petitioner was also directed to pay the arrears in course of one year in different instalments and the Petitioner was directed to make payment of current maintenance also.