IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.255 of 2011 Sunil Kumar Thakur, son of Late Yogendra Thakur, resident of Mohalla-Jurawan Singh, Naka No.3, P.S- Darbhanga Town, District- Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Sulekha Devi @ Rekha Devi, D/o Late Ram Baran Mahto. 3. Dhanu Kumar, minor son of Smt. Sulekha Devi @ Rekha Devi, through natural guardian and well-wisher Smt. Sulekha Devi, D/o Late Ram Baran Mahto (Both residents of Mohalla-Ajay Sahai Lodge, Shiva Ji Nagar, P.S.-Darbhanga Town, District- Darbhanga) ----------- 2. 08.08.2011 The husband petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Maintenance Case No.53/06 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.800/-per month to his wife and Rs.200/-per month to his minor son (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) for maintenance. The opposite parties have filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for grant of maintenance claiming to be the wife and minor son. The petitioner has denied that he is the husband and father of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 respectively. After the trial the impugned order has been passed. 2 Heard Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are not the wife and son of the petitioner. The marriage has been denied. It has also been contended that since the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are not the wife and son of the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the amount of maintenance. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the family court both the parties have adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing both the parties, learned Principal Judge has held that the petitioner is the husband and father of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Since, both of them have no means for their livelihood, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month for the maintenance of both of them, which is meagre amount for their maintenance. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, it appears that opposite party no.2 filed a petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court claiming to be a legally 3 wedded wife of the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 to be minor son out of that wedlock. The petitioner had committed rape to the opposite party no.2 and thereafter she became pregnant. A criminal case was lodged against the petitioner. Thereafter at the pressure of the Mohalla people, the petitioner married with her in a Temple without consent of his family members and started living at the house of the mother of opposite party no.2. Out of that wedlock, opposite party no.3 was born. The petitioner started atrocities against the opposite party no.2 and demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry. Thereafter, she was brutally assaulted by the petitioner. She was also refused the maintenance. Criminal case was lodged. Charge-sheet was submitted. The petitioner executed the deed of Ekrarnama Bond that the petitioner will keep his wife and maintain her properly alongwith her son vide bond dated 13.03.2006. There was also compromise between both the parties in the S.Tr.No.387/06 arising out of Darbhanga (Town) P.S. Case No.76/05 under Sections 448, 376, 323, 504, 498 A of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite parties have no means of their livelihood, whereas, the petitioner is in a job as private agent in Sahara India and 4 L.I.C. and he earns Rs.10,000/-per month from his job. The petitioner filed his show-cause denying the allegations and claiming that the opposite party no.2 is neither legally wedded wife nor opposite party no.3 is his son. Other allegations have also been denied. The petitioner has admitted that he was charge-sheeted in a rape case. He has also not denied the factum of compromise filed in the sessions case. Since, there is no relationship wife and husband between the parties. Therefore, there is no question of maintenance and desertion to the opposite parties by the petitioner. He has no source of income. The opposite party no.2 has married in another village with one Harendra Mahto against whom she filed a case of dowry vide complaint case no.833/01. It further appears that both the parties have adduced their evidence. The wife has examined five witnesses and the petitioner has examined altogether nine witnesses. Moreover, there are number of documentary evidence, which have been marked as Exhibits-1 to 8 on behalf of the wife and Exhibits-A to D on behalf of the petitioner. It further appears that the learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the 5 parties. In paragraph 21 of the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has considered the evidence of P.W.8, the petitioner himself and has considered the claim of the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2. Para- 21 of the impugned order is reproduced below : “O.P.W.8 the O.P. himself has said in his cross- examination that he has no house in Darbhanga Town but as discussed above this witness has said that his house in Darbhanga Town and he is concealing the fact. He has also admitted that Rekha Devi @ Sulekha has instituted a rape case and in that case he had gone jail and that case was compromised. He has admitted that in compromise he has admitted that he would keep Sulekha in good manner. He has also said that he had executed a bond. This admission of the O.P. proves the case of the petitioner that she is married wife of the O.P. as in the agreement of bone which is Ext-5 he has said that he will keep his wife Sulekha Devi @ Rekha Devi and his son Dhannu with himself. He will maintain them. He will not demand any money either from her or from her mother. He will not re-marry again. From Ext-3 which is the C.C. of compromise petition of Town P.S. Case No.76/05 in para-4 he has admitted that he will 6 keep the Sulekha Devi @ Rekha Devi, his wife as peacefully. On perusal of these documents and admission of the O.P. it is clear that O.P. solemnized marriage with the petitioner and there is a son out of this wedlock, namely Dhannu. From perusal of Ext-8 it is clear that O.P. is a Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner has failed to bring any evidence regarding his working as Agent in Sahara India or L.I.C. He is a Panchayat teacher. Not only this he is a young man of good physic and sound health and it is bounden duty to maintain his wife and his son”. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The impugned order does not require any interference. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)