BINOD KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party No. 2 Poonam Devi has been allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by Sri O.P. Rai, J.M. 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Case No. 535 of 1995/Tr. No. 159 of 2001 but prior to that an order had been passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Divorce Case No. 26 of 1995 on 6.6.2000 any by the said order opposite party No. 2 has been receiving Rs. 500/ - by way of maintenance pendente lite. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be directed to pay maintenance under both the provisions and, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur dated 20.9.2004 issued in a Criminal Revision No. 232 of 2001 upholding the order of the Judicial Magistrate is bad in law.

(3.) IT may also be mentioned here that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the Divorce Suit filed by the opposite party No. 2 under the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. Therefore, it is evident that the maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is no more in force. So, on this ground also the impugned order cannot be set aside.