- (1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Criminal Miscellaneous no. 288 of 2008 whereby and whereunder on a petition filed by the present opposite party no.1 Lalita Devi under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the court has directed the present petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to the opposite party no.1 Lalita Devi and Rs.400/- per month to her minor daughter Paitri Kumarithe opposite party no.2 represented through her mother and natural guardian.
(2.) At the instance of opposite party no.1, who is the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner, one petition was filed before the Family Court, Deoghar stating therein that her marriage with present petitioner Barun Rawani was solemnized in the month of March, 1999 according to Hindu Religion and Custom. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and started living there with the petitioner. Out of the wedlock, the present opposite party no.2 Paitri Kumari was born but thereafter, the petitioner and his family members started demanding a motorcycle from the opposite party and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and she was brutally assaulted on 01.05.2008 by the petitioner and his family members and even she was ousted from her matrimonial house. Since then she has been living with her parents. Though, her father tried to settle the dispute but the petitioner and his family members asked him to meet his demand first. It is also alleged that petitioner has solemnized his second marriage on 27.05.2008 with one Kabita Devi. The opposite party has no personal or independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter, she had filed a petition for grant of maintenance claiming that her husband has sufficient means and income of Rs.15,000/- per month from a grocery shop and also income from cultivation.
(3.) It appears from the record that after receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared in court on 21.11.2009 and step for conciliation of the dispute between the parties was taken up but the opposite party refused to live with the petitioner as he has solemnized his second marriage. The petitioner during conciliation proceeding never denied the factum of marriage with the opposite party no.1. The petitioner even after providing several opportunities on 17.12.2009 and 13.01.2010 preferred not to file any show-cause rather absented himself. Whereafter the case was fixed for ex parte evidence. The court below after examining the evidences brought on record by the opposite party and the circumstances and materials available on record, directed the petitioner as indicated above. Hence, this revision.;