IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1164 of 2009 Manohar Mahaseth Versus State Of Bihar & Anr ---------------------------------- 2. 19.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 17.06.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M.R. No.167 of 2006 by which he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to the wife-opposite party no.2, namely, Asha Devi. The Opposite Party No.2 Asha Devi filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani for grant of Rs. 3000.00 per month as her maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 were leading conjugal life but later the petitioner started torturing her for dowry and ultimately he married again with another lady, namely, Sita Devi. The petitioner has a business at Gouhati and after his second marriage with Sita, he drove away the opposite party no.2 from his house on 15.9.2005, for which, a criminal case vide C.R. Case No. 1282 of 2005 was instituted against him. The further case of the opposite party no.2 is that the petitioner runs business at Gouhati and he has also about 10 bighas of land and his annual income is more than 60,000/- whereas the opposite party is unable to maintain herself as 2 she has no source of income. The case of the petitioner as per show cause is that the case is not maintainable and the opposite party Asha Devi is not his wife. In fact, he was married to one Tetari Devi and after her death, he married Sita Devi. From her he has five children and the eldest one namely, Sujita Kumari is about 18 years. The opposite party no.2 Asha Devi is the wife of Arun Sah and has a son also named Prem Kumar from him. She had deserted Arun Sah and that she used to work in the house of the petitioner as maid servant, as such Sita Devi asked the opposite party to live in her house as concubine so she had been living with petitioner. She is not the wife of the petitioner. Hence, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not been able to prove her claim that she is the wife of the petitioner as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The petitioner is the poor farmer and has to maintain entire family from his little source of agricultural income. The Principal Judge has not carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner and has also gone on the document which has not been exhibited. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that 3 the petitioner has himself admitted in his affidavit on 14.10.2003 that he had married the opposite party no.2 with his free will and she is his legally wedded wife and was residing with him as his wife and that the voter list also supports the opposite party no2. as the wife of the petitioner. The learned court below has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has got passed the order which does not require any interference by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It appears that four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the opposite party who have supported the case of opposite party. It also appears from the evidence adduced on behalf of the Opposite Party that the petitioner has got source of income to maintain his wife opposite party no.2 but she has been neglected by him. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that the opposite party has not been able to prove her claim that she is wife of the petitioner. According to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute. Whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant of admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the learned Family Court has rightly taken into account the documents including the affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 14.10.2003 in which he 4 has admitted that he married with the opposite party no.2 Asha Devi and she is his legally married wife. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that opposite party is not his legally wedded wife. It also appears that the petitioner has not produced himself for giving evidence. It appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has rightly come to the conclusion vide the impugned order. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Ravi/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)