Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.

1. This application under Sections 397 /401 r/w Section 482, CrPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Criminal Revision No. 32/2008 affirming the order dated 29.09.2008, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) Nalbari in Case No. 73M/2006 granting maintenance allowance to the opposite party herein at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and Rs. 800/- per month each to the children of the parties with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2008 granting maintenance allowance to the opposite party/petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and order dated 19.05.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Criminal Revision No. 32/2008 affirming the judgment rendered by Magistrate in No. 73M/2006 on 29.09.2008, the applicant/second party has come up before this Court with the present proceeding requesting this Court to set aside the order(s), passed by the Courts below.

2. The facts, necessary for disposal of this present proceeding, in short, are that one Mustt. Khaimala Khatun is said to be the legally married wife of one Abul Kalam Azad. For convenience of discussion, Mustt. Khaimala Khatun and Abul Kalam Azad would be referred to hereinafter as first party and second party respectively.

3. In her application under Section 125, CrPC, the first party (wife) contends that she was married by the second party according to the rites and customs of Islamic law. After solemnization of their marriage, she went to the Rouse of her husband (second party) and started living with him as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, three children were born to them; their age at the time of filing of the proceeding in question was 6 years, 4 years and 7 months only.

4. Soon after the marriage, the second party started to demand the first party dowry which gave rise to series of disputes between them. The first party did everything to ensure that their marriage did not get dissolved due to atrocities perpetuated on her by her husband. In that connection, she reported the matters to the villagers for their intervention. The villagers, on her request, tried to settle the matter but in vain.

5. On 16.06.2002, the second party drove the first party out of his house along with her children. Immediately, on the next day, the second party pronounced three talaque seemingly to dissolve his marriage with her. Such a conduct on the part of her husband, forced her to live in her poor parents house with her young children since she on her own was not in a position to maintain herself and her three young children.

6. She, therefore, approached the Court by way of filing an application under Section 125, CrPC seeking Rs. 1000/- for each of her children as being their maintenance allowances inasmuch as, the second party despite having sufficient means of earning refused to maintain his young children without any just cause or excuse. It has also been stated that the second party is a rich man who earned Rs. 30,000/- p.m.

7. On receipt of the application under Section 125, CrPC, the learned Magistrate issued notice of the proceeding to the second party therein requiring him to appear before the Court to answer the allegations brought against him. The second party entered appearance and contested the case having filed written statement. His case inter alia was that the first party has founded her case on lies, conjectures and surmises.

8. According to him, the first party left his society/company quite often and on mere drops of hat making his life and living horrible and that on 16.06.2006 too, she left her matrimonial house without any reasonable cause and excuse. What is worse, she also took her children with her for which second party was forced to dissolve his marriage with the first party and on the dissolution of the marriage, he paid her Rs. 24,500/- being the value of differed Mahar and an amount to the tun