The petitioner Shiv Shankar Murmu has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the order passed in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2001 by the SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa on 28.2.2006 in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,5001- per month to the O.P. NO.2 Piyo Murmu was confirmed.

2. The short fact for consideration in the instant case was that the opposite party No. 2 Piyo Murmu had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- from her husband-petitioner herein on the ground that she was legally married to him on 28.1.1997 according to Santhal customary rites and thereafter both started living together. The marriage was consummated and after one month of their marriage, the petitioner left his house in order to join his duties in the army on assurance that he would visit her at regular intervals and that she would be provided all bare necessities of life. It was alleged that after departure of the husband-petitioner, her in-laws started perpetrating torture, stopped her food and compelled her to live in a cow-shed, thereby made her life miserable. When the petitioner returned back from his posting, the complainant/opposite party NO.2 narrated her miseries but without any heed to her grievance. She contacted the Mukhia of the village and a panchayati was convened on 8.3.1998, attended by several people of the village wherein the father of the petitioner assured that he would keep her with due care and comfort yet, there was no change in the behaviour of her in-laws After a long gap, second panchayati was held on 18.8.2000. In this Panchayati also no positive decision could be taken for her settlement except the false promise of her in-laws. The complainant alleged that when her husband came back and learnt about the panchayati, became furious and drove her out from his house. Finding no way out she took shelter in the house of one Salkhan Murmu, as her parents were already dead and there was none in her parental home. The petitioner was suitably employed in the army, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 8,330/-, besides 10 bighas of culturable land, as such, she claimed Rs. 500/- mot"1thly maintenance.

3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Sr. Counsel exhorted by submitting that the opposite party No.2 Piyo Murmu was not legally married wife of the petitioner herein. Admittedly, Chheka (engagement) was proposed to be made in between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 on the instance of his family members but the petitioner refused to marry her and therefore, the marriage between the two did not solemnize at all. For such reason, there appeared apprehension of breach of peace between the parties, giving rise to a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakradharpur, registered as Misc. Case No. 39 of 2001. Advancing his arguments Mr. A.K. Kashyap submitted that the narration of the opposite party No. 2 was totally false in respect of any panchayati either held on 8.1 .1998 or on 18.8.2000 and the opposite party No. 2 had never occasion to live in the house of the petitioner in any capacity including as his wife. The petitioner was an employee of the Central Government, i.e. Nayak in the Indian Army and at the relevant time he was. posted in the State of J&K, as such it was mandatory on his part to disclose the name of his wife in his service record but the petitioner as was still bachelor the fact that Piyo Murmu was his wife had got no bearing in his service book.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf .of the opposite party NO.2 submitted that there was concurrent finding of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistr