Criminal Miscellanious No.56469 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF RAM SWAROOP LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, NARKATIAGANJ, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAMAWATI DEVI @ GHARBHARAN DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE BABULAL SAH AND WIFE OF MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NEAR MUKHTAR KHANA, NARKATIAGANJ, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Basisth Narain Mishra, Advocate Mr. Brij Kishore Mishra, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- None. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. The petitioner was married to Ramawati Devi @ Gharbharan Devi sometime in the year 1995. The petitioner filed a divorce under Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that his wife was involved with another man namely Dilshad Ahmad. The opposite party no. 2 also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. 2. The divorce case and the application under Section 125 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure were heard by the same Court i.e. the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bettiah, West Champaran. In both the cases, witnesses were examined on behalf of both sides. The case made out by the petitioner is that his wife was earlier married to one Shambhu Prasad Kanu. It is his claim that without divorcing Shambhu Prasad Kanu, she married Chhowalal Sah. He was blessed with one son and two daughters. After the death of Chhowalal Sah she started living with his brother Mohan Sah. In fact it has been alleged by the petitioner that Chhowalal Sah committed suicide because opposite party no. 2 was involved with Mohan Sah. Eventually the petitioner and Ramawati Devi @ Gharbharan Devi got married and began to live together. It is alleged that the petitioner filed for divorce on the ground that his wife was sexually involved with Dilshad Ahmad. 3. The case of the opposite party no. 2 is that she has been living with her husband. There was a demand of dowry for which she instituted a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A proceeding 3 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated which ultimately culminated into compromise. However, all these facts had an adverse effect on the relationship between them. 4. The Court while considering the divorce took into consideration the disputes, allegations and counter allegations and granted divorce. Similarly the Court also looked into consideration the evidence of both the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has imputed all sorts of allegations against his wife, however, he has not been able to prove any of them by any concrete evidence. In view of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has been without roof on his head since 1999, he has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as maintenance. 5. I do not find any illegality with the reasoning of the Family Court for coming to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 1,000/-. The Court after discussing the evidence has come to the conclusion that the 4 petitioner has not been able to prove by any credible evidence that the opposite party no. 2 has remarried or was living adultery and as such has allowed the maintenance application. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this application is dismissed. Patna High Court, The 25th of April, 2011, Sanjay/N.A.F.R. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)