- (1.) THE petitioner has filed this Cr. Revision against the order dated 31st May, 2012 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa has allowed the petition filed by the applicant opposite party under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1000/ per month to the applicant -opposite party and a sum of Rs.500/ per month to the child from the date of the order. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party appeared in the Court below and filed his show cause. According to him, the petition is not maintainable. He has admitted his marriage with the applicant -opposite party, but he had denied about the daughter. He has submitted that there was Panchayti and in the said Panchayti, it was decided that the child is not of the present petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to give maintenance to the child. It is also stated in the said show cause that the applicant opposite party is hale and hearty and she can earn her livelihood. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 is a poor man and he is student and he has no source of income. He has no movable or immovable property, therefore, he is unable to maintain even the applicant opposite party.
(2.) IT is also submitted that to prove his case, the petitioner has examined two witnesses and produced documentary evidence i.e. Admit Card of Shankar Pratap Deo College, Nagaruntari to show that he is student of the said college, but the Courts below without considering these aspects, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.1500/ in total per month which in other way also very unreasonable and excessive. Counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that the applicant opposite party has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that the applicant opposite party was married with the petitioner in the year 2005 according to Hindu rites and customs and she went to her Sasural. Thereafter, the petitioner and her in laws started demanding dowry and started torturing her and ultimately in April, 2010, they drove out the applicant opposite party and her daughter from their house and now she is residing with her daughter at her father's house. Her parents tried to pacify the matter, but they failed, therefore, she claimed a sum of Rs.2000/ - for herself and a sum of Rs.1000/ for her child as maintenance.
(3.) TO support her case, applicant opposite party examined three witnesses P.W. 1, she herself, P. W. -2, her father and P.W. 3, neighbor. P.W. 2 has specifically stated that his son in law is a village doctor. He has also supported the case of the applicant opposite party.;