- (1.) THIS Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Principal Judge. Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 38 of 2004 whereby and where -under the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for grant of ad interim maintenance preferred by the opposite party No.2 Sunita Rai was allowed and the petitioner, Vivek Rai was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/ - being the maintenance amount and Rs.300/ - being the litigation cost on the monthly basis to the opposite party No. 2 from the date of the filing of her application.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. was initiated on the instance of the opposite party No. 2 with the prayer for direction to the petitioner herein to pay adequate maintenance. The marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 solemnized on 3.7.1998 was not disputed and it was stated that gifts were presented to the bridegroom. Even after her marriage there was persistent demand by the petitioner and for that she was subjected to torture mentally and physically. Being fed up, the complainant -opposite party No. 2 filet a complaint case No. 330 of 1999 against the alleged demand of dowry and torture in which the petitioner was arrested and subsequently he was enlarged on bail. It was further stated that the petitioner was an Engineer having monthly salary of Rs.35,000/ - besides, his earning from his immovable properties. In view of the alleged facts, the opposite party No.2 claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/ - per month as maintenance on monthly basis as she had no other source of income and was dependent upon her retired father. The petitioner appeared in the said proceeding and filed rejoinder by criticizing the nature of the O.P. No. 2 that members of his family were shocked when she refused to participate in household work and preparation of food, when she came to her matrimonial home, on the pretext that household work in her parental home were used to be done by the servants and that she started misbehaving with all the members of his family including his unmarried sisters. It was stated that the petitioner took her to Delhi on 14.9.1998 but, in the train she started abusing her father -in -law and sister -in -law causing embarrassing to the petitioner and in Delhi also she refused to cook food on the ground that she had obtained higher education not for cooking food and that she never allowed the petitioner to consummate. Finally it was stated that because of the criminal case instituted against him, the petitioner was arrested and consequently lost his job because of his detention in judicial custody. It was stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 was employed and her earning was of Rs.14,000/ - per month which has been supported by him on affidavit and she was quite solvent to maintain herself.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only because of rude behaviour of the opposite party No.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, the order on the petition for ad interim maintenance could not be passed as she had levelled imputation against the Principal Judge, Family Court and that only on the direction of the High Court, the Principal Judge, Family Court disposed of the matter and passed the order of ad interim maintenance on 2.6.2007 allowing Rs.1500/ - and Rs.300/ - being maintenance and litigation cost monthly though her intention was to linger the matter.;