D.K.SINHA,J. - (1.) THE instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Maintenance Case No.30 of 2007.
(2.) THE Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.2500/ - for the maintenance of the complainant wife -Opposite Party No.2 and further @ Rs.1000/ - per month for each of his minor children i.e. the Opposite Party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 total to the tune of Rs.5,500/ - per month. It was the admitted case that the petitioner No.1 was married to the Opposite Party No.2 in the year 1991 and from the consumation of marriage, two daughters and one son were born to them, who were the Opposite Party Nos. 3,4 and 5 herein. It was alleged that since 2003 the petitioner and the members of his family started extending torture to the Opposite Party No. 2 on account of non -fulfillment of the demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ - which was demanded by them. She was assaulted by the husband -petitioner on 17.01.2005 and other in laws and in the same sequence certain amount was snatched from her possession. In the meantime, the petitioner solemnized second marriage with one Most. Uma Devi, daughter of Jharkhandi Modi of village Parbatta in the month of January, 2005 with the consent and collusion with the other members of his family. Finally, she was assaulted on 08.02.2005 soon after his second marriage and her jewelleries worth Rs. 10,000/ - and cash about Rs.5,000/ - were retained by the accused persons. Since then she with her children was living at her parental home. A "Panchayati  was also held but the accused persons abstained and hence Complaint Case No. 119 of 2005 was filed by her for the alleged offence under Section 498A and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the petitioner wherein a compromise was filed on 07.09.2005 during pendency of the Bail Petition No. 801 of 2005 before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh wherein the petitioner -husband undertook to give Rs.1,000/ - per month as maintenance to his wife and also promised to deposit Rs.20,000/ - in the name of his daughter Sushila Kumari for her marriage in terms of a compromise and then bail was granted to him, yet, after his release from jail he did not adhere to the terms of the compromise. The complainant was a housewife having no independent source of earning and was totally dependant upon her parents with her minor children. The complainant O.P.No.2 claimed that her husband -petitioner had earning Rs.5,000/ - per month from his business and Rs.50,000/ - per annum from his cultivation and therefore, total sum of Rs. 5,500/ - was demanded being the maintenance per month of the complainant and her minor children. The petitioner -husband appeared in the said proceeding. In his causes shown the husband -petitioner admitted his marriage with the Opposite Party No.2. He explained that on 01.05.2004 when he was away from his house the father of the complainant Amir Modi came to his house and took away is wife with the children. It was further alleged that he removed Rs.5000/ - in cash and one Alowin automatic wrist watch as also the receipt of the fixed deposit passbook of Rs.12,000/ - from his house. When the members of his family protested then the father of the complainant took the complainant away pretending that her mother was ill and that he would return her within a week. When his wife and the children did not return within time stipulated the petitioner -husband filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The complainant did not appear in spite of the receipt of the notice and finally by the order dated 23.04.2005 the case was decided in favour of the husband -petitioner. It was further explained that the demand of dowry was false and concocted and it was also false that Chhotu Modi had assaulted Malti Devi due to non -fulfillment of the aforesaid amount. The petitioner -husband expressed his willingness and readiness to keep his wife and children and was also ready to spend Rs.1,000/ - per month for their maintenance and to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/ - for the marriage of their daughter Sushila Kumari but of no avail. As regards the income and maintenance of his wife and children the husband -petitioner explained that the father of his wife had transferred his entire property worth Rs.5,00,000/ - ( Five lakh) in the name of his daughter complainant. Her father being the employee of Indian Railway had sufficient income to maintain her and her children and that he offered to keep the husband -petitioner in his house as "Gharjamai  to which he refused and for that she was not at all ready to live at her matrimonial home. Besides, she was doing job of tailoring through which she used to earn Rs.10,000/ - per month, on the other hand he was a poor man, not capable to maintain by meeting out the demand of the complainant for herself and the children.
(3.) LEARNED Principal Judge, Family Court by his order dated 12.02.2009 passed in Maintenance Case No.30 of 2007 observed that the petitioner -husband was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No.119 of 2005 and he was adequately sentenced by a detailed discussions. Learned Principal Judge observed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on the record there were sufficient cause for the complainant to stay in her parental home with her children. Learned Principal Judge explained that for obtaining anticipatory bail the petitioner -husband entered into compromise and his anticipatory bail was granted only on deposit of Rs.24,000/ - to which the complainant admitted having received the said amount. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh on appreciation of the evidence on record adduced on behalf of the parties, by a detailed order, observed in the following manner, "However, taking into consideration of the fact that the opposite -party himself has already given undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/ - per month at the time of hearing of his bail application, it appears judicious that the opposite -party should be asked to make some payments towards maintenance allowance to the petitioner so that she may maintain herself and her children properly. It appears that undertaking by the opposite -party regarding payment of Rs.1,000/ - per month to the petitioner was given on 7.9.2005. Considering the fact that after his passage of time, cost of living and other expenses have been increased, it appears that the opposite -party should be asked to pay Rs.1200/ - per month towards maintenance allowance to the petitioner to all four petitioners @ Rs.300/ - per month to each petitioner, in view of fact of source of income to petitioner No.1 from agricultural land mentioned above (from her parental property).  Accordingly, the Principal Judge directed the husband -petitioner Chhotu Modi to pay Rs.1200/ - per month to the petitioner No.1 @ Rs.300/ - to each of the petitioners from the date of filing of the case (proceeding) i.e. since 19.03.2007 with further direction to pay the arrears.  ;