- (1.) PETITIONER has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 30.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -II, Khunti in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2001 by which the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1999 in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12.1.2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 400/ - per month to the wife -opposite party No. 2 was upheld and confirmed.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 preferred a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming monthly maintenance from her husband - petitioner on the ground that he extended torture to her and also that he solemnized second marriage with one Bindeshwari daughter of Mahendra Mahto some six years ago without her consent. It was further alleged that the petitioner -husband had extended threat that she would be strangulated to death in case she would return back to his home. Complainant -wife asserted that the petitioner had income of Rs. 40,000/ - to 50,000/ - per annum from the business and that he was the son of a big farmer. In his causes shown, petitioner -husband refuted the entire assertion related to his second marriage and annual income. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a different set of allegation brought about by the opposite party No. 2 charge was framed under Sections 498A/ 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and he was convicted by the Trial Court but his conviction and sentence were set aside in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2000 by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti on 21.9.2001 and accordingly, petitioner was acquitted.
(3.) MAIN contention of the petitioner was that he had never married to the complainant -opposite party No. 2 rather, she was imposter and that she could not be able to establish in the criminal case aforesaid that she was legally married wife of the petitioner, even in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;