- (1.) THE present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Maintenance Case No. 75 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/ - per month towards maintenance of his wife namely the Opposite Party NO.2.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. The claim for maintenance from the petitioner was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized 38 years ago and in course of their cohabitation, she gave birth to two children. However, since the petitioner was not providing for her maintenance, the had to take shelter at her parents' house. Her further case is that though the matrimonial relation between her and her husband is still subsisting, but the petitioner had entered into a second marriage with another lady even during the subsistence of his marriage with the Opposite Party No. 2 and therefore. she had to leave the house and company of the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner, on the other hand, had contested the claim of the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that it was the lady who had deserted him ever since after the marriage. The petitioner has also levelled certain imputations against the character of the lady alleging that she has been maintaining extra -marital relations with some other persons. It was also contended by him that he has no means of livelihood. In course of the inquiry, the court below had obtained the evidences adduced by both the parties and considering the evidences, the trial court has held that there is relationship of husband and wife, between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 and since the petitioner had contracted a second marriage with another lady, it offers sufficient ground for the opposite party NO.2 to withdraw herself from the society of her husband and claim separate maintenance. Furthermore, on the issue of income of the petitioner, the trial court had considered the evidences that the petitioner happens to be self -employed as driver of an auto -rickshaw and his earnings are Rs.2,000/ - per month and be Sides that he derives income from landed properties also.;