Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Satakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.07.2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 (Criminal Misc. Case No. 05 of 1992) by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka by which an application preferred by the petitioner u/s 127(2) of the Cr. P.C. has been dismissed.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 was granted an amount of Rs. 400/- as monthly maintenance which the petitioner has sought to be recalled by filing an application u/s 127(2) of the Cr. P.C. which was subsequently rejected on 05.07.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had kept silent with respect to the opposite party no. 2 being his second wife for a considerable length of time. It has been submitted that in the revisional order as well as in the reply filed by the opposite party no. 2 it would clearly reveal that the opposite party no. 2 is the second wife of the petitioner and in such circumstances the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance.;