- (1.) HEARD Mr. Jitendra Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2. JC to GP II appears on behalf of the State.
(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned courts below have committed a mistake by not accepting the plea of the petitioner that respondent no.2 Sabratini Devi has herself divorced the petitioner before filing of the recent Maintenance case. According to Sri Nath, the lady herself has left the house and lodged false case against him. Therefore, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa dated 30.6.2003 and the revisional court dated 10.12.2004 may be quashed. Jc to GP II opposed this contention vehemently.
(3.) I have gone through the materials on record as well as the impugned orders. The plea taken by the petitioner that he was divorced by his wife has not been accepted by both the courts below, as the petition filed by the petitioner taking this plea has been rejected by order dated 30.6.2003 which has not been challenged anywhere. The other pleas taken by the petitioner that lady herself has left the house have been dealt with by both the courts below and arrived at finality. In other criminal cases under Sections 498A IPC and 125 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has already lost.;