- (1.) KAMLESHWAR Nath, J. Criminal Misc. Case No. 379 of 1987 is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been directed to be connected with Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 1987, hence the 2 cases are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner-appellant was married to Smt. Nighat Parveen on 19-11-1978. THEy be got a son on 16- 12-1979. According to Smt. Nighat Parveen, his name is Nazir Ahmad, the opposite party-respondent; according to the petitioner-appellant, the name of his son is Azizullah and not Nazir Ahmad. From 18-12-1980 Nighat Parveen along with her son started living at her parents' house. She complained that the petitioner-appellant had beaten and had turned her out of the house and therefore she went to her parents' house and was not being maintained by the petitioner-appellant. She there fore applied to the concerned Magistrate on 5-1-1981 for maintenance for her self and for the opposite-party-respondent under Section 125, Cr. P. C. The motion was opposed by the petitioner-appellant who said, inter alia, that Smt. Nighat Parveen had left his house along with the child of her own accord and without his meeting any cruelty to her and that his son is not Nazir Ahmad but Azizullah and therefore Nighat Parveen was not entitled to maintenance either for herself or for the opposite-party-respondent.
(3.) THE trial court did not accept the theory that the lady had been beaten and turned out of the house. He further found that the lady was making her own earning to the tune of Rs. 600 or 65u per month and therefore she was capable of maintaining herself and consequently was not entitled to any main tenance for herself. He however, held that the opposity party Nazir Ahmad is the peti tioner appellant's son although he may be called by the name of Azizullah by the petitioner-appellant. He therefore chose to describe the opposite-party respondent as Nazir Ahmad alias Azizullah. The trial court further held that in any case it was the responsibility of the petitioner-appellant to maintain his son and having regard to his own admission that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 150 as a servant and had a house which was on rent, held that the petitioner-appellant must pay Rs. 100 per month to Nighat Parveen as maintenance for opposite-party respondent with effect from the date of the application, i. e. , 5-1-1981.;