A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chaudhuri, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. N. Guha, learned Counsel representing the Respondent.

2. The interesting question to be decided in this revision petition is whether the dismissal of a petition filed under 2 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') debars the wife, from claiming maintenance allowance from the husband by filing a second application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows:

The Respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura, claiming maintenance from her husband, the Petitioner herein. The petition so filed by the Respondent was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 91/2008.In the said petition, the Respondent stated that the marriage between the parties took place about 22 years back, but because of torture upon her and being instigated by another wife of the husband-Petitioner, she was compelled to desert the Petitioner with her children. The Respondent claimed maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 500/- each per month for her four children by filing a formal application before Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura. The learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura, vide judgment dated 25.09.2008 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 91 of 2008, considering the entire evidence on record, rejected the prayer of the Respondent.

4. In the said application, i.e., Crl. Misc. Case No. 91 of 2008, the Respondent-wife admitted to have given birth to seven children when she was living with her husband. The Respondent wife also stated to have admitted in the said application that all the children were living with her. Having found various inconsistencies in the statement of the wife-Respondent, the prayer for maintenance allowance was rejected.

5. It has been stated on behalf of the Petitioner husband that subsequently Crl. Misc. Case No. 206/2009 was filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura on 15.12.2009, after rejection of the earlier application, i.e., Crl. Misc. No. 91 of 2008 filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the Respondent-wife claimed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 500/- each for her four children.

6. The Petitioner-husband contested the case by filing written objection stating therein that he was 61 years old and his earning was about Rs. 800/- per month. The Petitioner-husband also alleged that Respondent-wife filed this application on the instigation of some other people and also apprised the learned Family Judge, Family court that on 25.09.2008 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 91/2008, the prayer so made on similar situation by the Respondent-wife for maintenance, was rejected. It has been further contended by the Petitioner-husband that the Respondent-wife is a BPL Card holder and has separate mess and all the seven children have been living with her and two of them are earning.

7. Learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura recorded the evidence of the parties. It has been admitted by the parties that after 30 years of marriage, they have five sons and two daughters, who are living with the wife. The Respondent-wife also alleged that seven years before, while she was pregnant, her husband stopped giving her maintenance allowance and since then she has been living on her own. However, on consideration of the entire gamut of facts, the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura passed the impugned order in Crl. Misc. Case No. 206 of 2009, directing payment of maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month to the Respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application.

8. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner husband