AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THIS revision application has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter called as the husband) against the judgment/order dated 8.08.2003 by the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Dumka in Criminal Revision No. 104/1993/14/2003, allowing the revision application and directing the husband petitioner to pay Rs. 500.00 p.m. by way of maintenance to O.P. No. 2 (hereinafter called as the wife).
(2.) THE wife Dayamani Mandalain filed an application under Sec.125 Cr PC before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, which was registered as Criminal Misc. No. 14/91. It was stated in the said petition under Sec. 125 Cr PC by the wife that she was the legally married wife of Suresh Mandal, the petitioner herein. The marriage was performed in the Month of May 1983 according to Hindu custom and rights and since thereafter they were living as husband and wife. Subsequently, the husband started neglecting her and he refused to maintain her. He stopped taking any care about her fooding, clothing etc. -Since 1986. Her father requested and tried to persuade his son -in - law, i.e., Suresh Mandal to take is wife and maintain her properly but with no result. Subsequently, the husband Suresh Mandal performed second marriage with one Durgi @ Durga Mandalain, daughter of Ishwar Mandal on 11.3.1990 and since after the second marriage the husband Suresh Mandal completely deserted his wife. The wife was living in her father 'shouse. She had no independent source of income whereas her husband was having sufficient means and landed property and was carrying on the business of sale, purchase and repair of bicycle and was running a shop and was having monthly income more than Rs. 1200.00 P.M. The husband Suresh Mandal, filed his show cause wherein he admitted the marriage between him and Dayamani Mandalain, but he denied the allegation of neglecting her and refusal to maintain her. It was further stated by him that his wife herself left her matrimonial home, in his absence. In fact he alongwith his brother -in -law Surendra Mandal had gone to take his wife back but his father -in -law on one pretext or the other did not send her with him. He further denied his second marriage with Durgi @ Durga Mandalain. It was further stated that when his wife was ill he had taken her to Dr. K.K. Sinha of Ranchi and got her examined by him on 1.6.1988, which indicates that he did not neglect his wife. It was further stated by him that in fact his wife was living adulterous life and was entangled with her brother -in -law namely Nand Lal Mandal with whom she had illicit relation and, therefore, she was not wiling to live with him (petitioner) and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance at all.
(3.) ON behalf of claimant wife five witnesses were examined before the learned SDJM and on behalf of husband two witnesses were examined. The learned SDJM by his judgment dated 2.2.1993 dismissed the petition filed by the wife and held that the husband Suresh Mandal did not neglect his wife and he went, to his in -laws place to bring his wife back but she refused. It was further held that he was still ready and willing to keep her. with him. It was further held that the conduct of the in -laws of the petitioner showed that they themselves were not willing to send the wife of the petitioner. The learned SDJM further held that the husband was ready to keep his wife with him and he has full right and title over his wife and, therefore, the wife has to go with the husband as she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner Suresh Mandal.;