D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS Cr. Revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. Case No. 24 of 2003/83 of 2003 whereby the petitioner in a proceeding under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. was directed to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 2000.00 per month to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 w.e.f. 3.4.2003 and further to pay Rs. 1000.00 per month towards the accumulated arrears by the order dated 2.8.2005.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka was that the petitioner/opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku was legally married to the petitioner Anil Besra on 24.6.1999 according to Santhal customs and rituals. After marriage, Rojlina Kisku started living in the house of her husband -petitioner Anil Besra and from their wedlock a son Patras Besra (O.P. No. 3) was born to them on 14.6.2001. After the birth of the child it was alleged that the petitioner/opposite party Anil Besra brought another woman Namita Soren in his house and asked his wife Rojlina Kisku to leave his house. When she refused, she was abused, assaulted, even tortured in various ways and ultimately it was alleged that the petitioner Anil Besra drove his wife Rojlina Kisku out from his house after snatching all her belongings including her Jewellaries and finding no way out, she took shelter along with her son at her father's house. The petitioner and the members of his family admitted their guilt in Panchayati who undertook in writing and accordingly, Opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku and her son O.P. No. 3 were taken to the house of the petitioner. It was further alleged that after 4/5 days again she was driven out by the petitioner Anil Besra from his house inspite of the request made by the father of the opposite party No. 2 to keep her with humility but to no avail and since then she started living with her son at her parental home. The complainant Rojlina emphatically stated in the complain that no maintenance was given to her or his son by the petitioner Anil Besra and that she had no source of earning. Her father being a poor landless person had no means to maintain her daughter. On the other hand, it was averred in the petition that the petitioner Anil Besra had about 11 bighas land from which he used to earn about Rs. one lakh per year. Besides, he maintained Marshal Jeep and an Ambassador Car and in this manner the income of the petitioner, Anil Besra was about Rs. 15,000.00 per month and therefore, he was quite solvent to maintain his wife and son. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Anil Besra was neither married to opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku nor the opposite party No. 3 Patras Besra was born from their wedlock and therefore, he was not the son of the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned Counsel further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 had brought about a criminal case simultaneously for the offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner Anil Besra and the members of his family in which the petitioner along with others was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Against the impugned judgment aforesaid the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2004/6 of 2004 which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka on the ground that the factum of his marriage with Rojlina could not be proved hence the charge under Sec. 498A IPC could not be substantiated.;