H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the opposite party and learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE instant revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Maintenance Case No. 17 of 1997, whereby the court below, has directed the Petitioner, Nelson Pittar to give maintenance of Rs. 800/per month, to his wife opposite party No. 2, Teresa Pal @ Lakshmi and Rs. 500/ - per month each to his daughters opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 namely Mary Peter and Trikal Peter respectively. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner is not challenging that part of the order passed by the Court below by which maintenance has been granted to his daughters and he is also giving maintenance to his daughters. He is challenging the impugned order so far as maintenance granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 Teresa Pal @ Lakshmi, who is the wife of this Petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order granting maintenance is illegal in as much as the husband was not examined as witness in this case. The Court has relied upon the deposition of the Petitioner marked as Ext. 2 in another case. Learned Counsel has accordingly submitted that the impugned order can not be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the Court below has discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the both the parties and has also given finding on the quantum of maintenance.;