RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel for the State.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the the order dated 17.5.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Revision No. 27 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 11.2.1998 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 26 of 1985 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara refusing maintenance to the petitioners herein has been affirmed.
(3.) IT appears that an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner No. 1 on 10.7.1985 on the ground that she was married to opposite party No. 2 at Deoghar Temple on 20.5.1982 and thereafter they were living together as husband and wife. It was stated in the application that that earlier the husband was married with one Pachiya Mandalin who had also filed a maintenance case against the opposite party No. 2 which was allowed, but subsequently the opposite party No. 2 compromised with Pachiya Mandalin and she was also brought to his house and started living with them. Subsequently due to quarrel between the parties, the petitioner No. 1 along with her daughter who is petitioner No. 2 left the house of opposite party No. 2 and started living with her widow mother at Karmatarn. When petitioner No. 1 was going to Karmatarn, opposite party No. 2 and the divorced wife Pachiya Mandalin and others brutally assaulted the petitioner and snatched away Rs. 460/ - and gold ornaments from her. Since from 1983, the petitioner No. 1 along with her daughter petitioner No. 2 were living separate from opposite party No. 2 and she did not have any source of income to maintain herself and her daughter, she has filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. being Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1985 for grant of maintenance of Rs. 300 per month. It appears that on 11.2.1998 an order was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1985 by which the petitioners were refused maintenance. Against the said order dated 11.2.1998, a revision was preferred, but the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka was pleased to dismiss the said revision as being not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has married the petitioner No. 1 and after she was assaulted, she started living at another place along with her minor daughter and her widow mother. She having no means for their livelihood, she filed a maintenance case. It has been further submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate without considering the case of the petitioner dismissed her application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and thereafter revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed as not maintainable. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 11.2.1998 discussed each and every aspect of the case and has clearly held that the petitioner No. 1 although claimed to have solemnized marriage with the opposite party No. 2, but produced no evidence and even she failed to produce the marriage register which is maintained at the Deoghar Temple. She also failed to bring on record any evidence with regard to divorce between the said Pachiya Mandalin and the opposite party No. 2. Thus, it has been concluded by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate that the petitioner No. 1 was not entitled for maintenance, as she failed to establish the fact that she was married with the opposite party No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock.;