AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Criminal Misc. Case no. 90 of 2005 under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ 3000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and @ 2000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 in the present revision.
(2.) The learned senior counsel has contended that the learned Family Court has erred in law, by holding that the marriage of the petitioner with Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu was void in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, while deciding an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. It is contended that even assuming for arguments sake that Chanchala Devi had married the petitioner then also from the documents, i.e. Exhibit-A, which is the certified copy of the trial register of P.C.R. Case no. 208 of 1994, (T.R. no. 723 of 1994), Exhibit-B the certified copy of trial register of Criminal Misc. Case no. 31 of 1994, it is explicit that Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu had instituted a case under section 125 Cr. P.C. and under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. In both the cases compromise was arrived at and these documents establish the fact that the petitioner was earlier married to Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu, who has been examined as O.P.W.-5. That the petitioner's categorical stance as per the showcause is that he was married to Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu in the year 1984, since he had married a tribal lady his family members severed relationship with him and had banned Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu's and his entry to the ancestral house, consequently O.P.W.- 5 had no acquaintance whatsoever with his brothers and sisters hence it was but natural that she remained ignorant about the names of his sisters and relatives. It is argued that Exhibit-C, is the electoral roll of 2003 of Godda Assembly Constituency wherein Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu has been mentioned as wife of the petitioner and Exhibit-C/1 and C/2, are the Voter I-Cards issued in the year 2003 and 2008 respectively in the names of petitioner and Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu. These documents prove the factum of marriage of Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu with the petitioner. It is argued that the trial court has adopted a double yardstick by not considering these documents, but has relied on the Exhibits E, E/1 and E/2 and held that since there is finding of a competent court to show that opposite party no. 2 was the legally wedded wife accordingly she was entitled to maintenance. Learned senior counsel has argued that it is surprising that the learned judge has discarded Exhibits A, B and C and held that the earlier marriage of the petitioner with Mukta Rani @ Maku Tudu was void under the Hindu Marriage Act. The finding regarding the factum of marriage of the petitioner with O.P. no. 2 can only lead to the conclusion that O.P. no. 2 was the second wife of the petitioner, hence, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the learned Judge has rightly held that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and it is evident that opposite party no. 2 had instituted P.C.R. Case no. 124 of 2002 under section 498(A) which resulted in conviction of the petitioner and the Criminal Appeal no. 16 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. This clinches the issue that opposite party no. 2 was the legally married wife and the learned Judge has considered and discussed the oral evidence adduced on behalf of O.P. no. 2 whereby she has been able to establish the factum of marriage with the petitioner. Thus, the learned judge has rightly held that she is the legally wedded wife and granted the maintenance to O.P. no. 2 and her son who was a minor at that point of time in 2006 when the application was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.;