Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The instant Cr. Revision application is directed against the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Maintenance Case No. 448 of 2011, wherein the learned Trial Court allowed the maintenance petition filed by the opposite party no.2 (hereinafter referred to as “O.P. No.2”) under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 for her maintenance by 15th day of every succeeding month with effect from 1st September, 2016 and has also directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the O.P. No.2 towards cost of litigation.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the O.P. No.2 (Sunita Devi) instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 16.11.2011 before the learned Trial Court seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for herself and her minor daughter. It is her case that she was married to the petitioner on 05.05.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs, and thereafter commenced her matrimonil life with the petitioner at her matrimonial house, during which period a daughter was born from the wedlock. The O.P. No.2 has alleged that the matrimonial relationship deteriorated when, at instance of the petitioner's parents, siblings and other relatives, the petititoner developed an illicit relationship with one Babita Devi, resulting in her being compelled to live a deserted and neglected life along with her daughter. The O.P. No.2 further asserted that the petitioner, who is stated to be a medical practitioner runs a nursing home and also owns approximately 25 acres of agricultural land besides a tractor, thresher, and a large residential house, earns a substantial income both from his profession and agriculture, and is therefore fully capable of maintaining her and the girl child from their wedlock. She claims that her own economic condition is extremely vulnerable. It is additionally alleged by the O.P. No.2 that she recently came to know of the petitioner’s alleged further illicit relationship with another women, namely Chanda Devi, who is stated to have been kept by him in his residence. In such circumstances, it has become impossible for the O.P. No.2 to continue her matrimonial life with the petitioner, leaving her no alternative but to seek maintenance for herself and her child under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The case of the petitioner is that O.P. No.2 is not wife of the petitioner. O.P. No.2 was married with Sumeshwar Kumar @ Sumesh on 16.05.2006 and from their marriage a daughter was born on 25.06.2007. She had filed complaint case vide C-195 of 2008 against her husband and his family members which was compromised and was withdrawn on 08.09.2008. She filed a Divorce Case No.40 of 2009 on compromise and permanent Bench of Lok Adalat granted divorced on 04.06.2009. The further case of petitioner is that he was married with Babita Devi on 18.05.1997 and from their wedlock he has been blessed with two daughters. He has never solemnized his marriage with O.P. No.2 and she falsely filed Complaint Case vide C-1012 of 2012 on 30.04.2012 and the maintenance case to extort money from him.

5. The O.P. No.2 filed the Maintenance Case No. 448 of 2011 seeking Rs. 20,000/- monthly maintenance. In order to substantiate her case against the petitioner, O.P. No.2 has examined altogether four witnesses, as under:—

P.W.s Names

P.W.-1 Sunita Devi (O.P. No.2)

P.W.-2 Rameshwar Prasad (father of O.P. No.2)

P.W.-3 Rajan Kumar (brother of O.P. No.2)

P.W.-4 Binod Rai (independent witness)

Moreover, O.P. No.2 has produced photographs marked as X to X/17 and medical prescription of Rajendra Sewa Sadan marked as X/18 for identification wherein all the aforementioned documents are contested by the petitioner. The O.P. No.2 has also exhibited the photo copy of the C.C. of sale deed dated 02.07.2011 e