Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma whereby maintenance was ordered to be paid to the minor children of the applicant/O.P.no.2, from the quarterly accruing interest of the fixed deposit of 5.00 lacs having STDR No.01291006032, with a further direction that principal amount of fixed deposit of 5 lacs shall not be allowed to be encashed by any one even after its maturity and it shall be renewed from time to time on the application of O.P.no.2, herein, so that the maximum benefit of the accrued interest of the said fixed deposit would be available for the maintenance of the children.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed without noticing the petitioner. That the petitioner is the mother-in-law of O.P.no.2 and aged about 75 years; that under the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is not bound to maintain O.P.no.2 and her minor children. That the fixed deposit stands in the name of the petitioner and her two sons and one of the son is the husband of O.P.no.2; that the petitioner is undergoing treatment for her heart disease and other ailments of old age; that petitioner had given in writing to the Bank that annual interest should be credited in her Current Account no.11471747136. It is further urged that amount of 5 lac kept in fixed deposit was given as 'dain mehar' by the late husband of the petitioner; that the interest accruing from the said amount is spent by the petitioner to meet her medical expenses and the needs and requirement for her livelihood and maintenance. That the petitioner came to know from the Branch Manager of the Bank that as per the order of the Court the accrued interest in the fixed deposit amount is not being credited to her account. It is urged that the petitioner is living separately from her sons and daughters and she has to undergo treatment for her heart disease at B.M.Birla, Heart Research Centre, Kolkata and in support of the same medical certificate of the aforesaid institute has been annexed as Annexure-1. It is contended that the order of granting maintenance out of the interest accruing from fixed deposit lying in the name of the petitioner without noticing her, is bad in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for O.P.no.2 has contended that the present revision application is not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. hence, she has no locus standi. It is canvassed that the husband of O.P.no.2 had preferred Cr.Revision no.833/2010 against the impugned order and the same was dismissed, thus in the given circumstances this Court cannot review the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissing the aforesaid revision application. That the trial court has discussed the evidence on record and after hearing the parties has given a finding that the STDR is in the name of the petitioner and her two sons, thus as per the evidence on record it has held that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the amount of 5.00 lacs was given as 'dain mehar' by her late husband to the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner is residing jointly with her sons,accordingly, the aforesaid amount is the joint property therefore, the trial court has rightly ordered for payment of maintenance to the minor children of O.P.no.2 out of the quarterly interest accruing on the said STDR.;