M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar. learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 83 of 2002 whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners claiming maintenance under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case is that petitioner No. 1 was married with opposite parly No. 2 about 35 years back and .were blessed with two sons and two daughters. In 1997 the opposite Party No. 2 married second wife and left the house. Petitioner No. 1 alleged that two daughters although married have been living with her and could not sent to their sasural. The opposite party appeared and filed show -cause denying all the allegations and stated that petitioners have been residing in his house and they are looking after all the agricultural land and appropriating the income. The Court below considering the evidence adduced from the side of the petitioners came to the conclusion that sons are major and the daughters have already married and petitioner No. 1 and his major sons are residing in the house of the opposite party and they are managing agricultural land. Petitioners therefore failed to establish that without any reasonable excuse the opposite party refused to maintain the petitioners. Accordingly application was dismissed.
(3.) FROM perusal of the lower Court record, it appears that petitioner No. 1 examined herself as witness and admitted that she has been living in sasural. Other petitioners who are the sons and daughters have not been examined as witnesses. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners have stated that both the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party are living separately because of the second marriage conducted by the opposite party.;