AMITAV K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision application has been directed against the order dated 11.7.2005, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No.72 of 2004, wherein the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1300/ - per month as maintenance to the O.P.No.2.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order would reveal that the O.P.No.2 has not produced any document to show that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that Nikahnama is an essential document for proof of marriage. That the learned Principal Judge, Family Court without considering this fact had relied on the ex -parte order of the Executive Magistrate, Desertion Cell, Dhanbad whereby the Executive Magistrate has ordered for deduction of Rs.200/ - per month from the salary of the petitioner. It is argued that O.P.No.2 is married to Md. Israil and opportunity has not not been given to the petitioner to prove this fact. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had filed Nikahnama regarding his marriage with Rukhsana Parveen, who was examined as O.P.W. -2 but the said document has not been brought on record due to inadvertence. That the finding of the trial court that there is a photocopy of a document of the Advocate's notice of M/S B.C.C.L, admitting in para -6 that a sum of Rs.300/ - was being paid by the petitioner and could be continued only upto October 2005, is incorrect as the aforesaid amount was never deducted from the salary of the petitioner neither the petitioner had paid any maintenance amount to the O.P.No.2; that the said photocopy of Advocate's notice was never shown to the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to rebut or controvert the said document. It is argued that O.P.No.2 had filed Title Suit bearing no.172/2003 in the court of Munsif -I, Dhanbad, wherein there is categorically finding that O.P.No.2 did not produce any document to prove her marriage with the petitioner accordingly, the relief claimed by O.P.No.2 in the said suit was rejected which can be evidenced in Annexure -2.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State is in attendance, however on repeated call none appears on behalf of the O.P.No.2. On perusal of record it transpires that there has been valid service of notice on O.P.No.2 but till date O.P.No.2 has not appeared nor taken steps in the case.;