Petitioner had filed this revision application against the order dated 15th September, 2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Misc. Case No. 66 of 2005 whereby, the court below has directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintennace allowance @ Rs. 1,500/- per month form the date of filing of the application and to pay before 15th day of each month from October 2009 and onwards. Further, it has been directed also to pay arrear of maintenance allowance from 16.11.2005 to September 2009 in three equal installments within three months of the order.

2. As both the appeals arose out of the said common judgment, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The prosecution against the appellants was launched on the basis of fardbeyan of Ghasi Ram Mohanthy (PW. 8) dated 13.1.1999 who happened to be the father of the deceased Pradip Mohanthy.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.1.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. Dilip Samal had come to the house of the informant and proposed for going to the market for selling fish. The informant accompanied Dilip and went to the market at the place where informant's son Pradip Mohanthy was already selling fish. Dilip Samal was having a Pankhi (Bathi) in his hand. When they reached in the market, Dilip Samal went to Panchu Kaibarta and had some conversation with him. At about 2 p.m. Dilip Samal started wandering in the market and declaring that today is the Bouri Festival (previous to Makarsankranti) and that he would kill Pradip. Thereafter he came, where the informant's son was selling fish, and gave a heavy Balthi blow on his neck causing severe cut injury followed by profuse bleeding, Pradip rushed to hospital but he could not survive and succumbed to the injury. Informant alleged that the cause of incident was differences between the informant's son and Dilip regarding selling of fish as the informant's son was selling fish at a lower price.

5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan police registered a case under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC against the appellants. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under the said penal sections.

6. Charges were framed under Sections 302/120B IPC. The accused/appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. Appellants took defence that Dilip Samal was in drunken condition. He was moving round the market having Baithi in his hand and the accused/appellant Dilip Kumar Samal fell down over deceased causing injury on the neck of Pradip resulting into his accidental death.

8. Prosecution, in order to prove charges against the appellants, altogether examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Prabhat Kumar Mahto is a formal witness who has proved his signature on seizure list (Ext-.1). P.W.2 Prahalad Kumar Mohanty is the brother of the deceased, he has been examined as an eye witness; however, he was not an FIR witness. P.W. 3 Firoz Aman is said to be present in the market at the time of occurrence and claimed to be an eye witness. P.W.4 Dr. Radhika Kumari Sinha had conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. PW.5 Sushil Kumar Sahu claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence although in the FIR he is not named as an eye witness. P.W. 6 S.S. Sanasu another seizure list witness, proved his signature on the seizure list (Ext.-1/1). P.W. 7 Mahendra Kaibarta is a tendered witness. P.W. 8 Ghasi Mohanty is the informant and father of the deceased. He proved his statement made in the fardbeyan and supported the prosecution version. P.W. 9 Bharat Prasad Singh is the I.O. of the case. He has corroborated the prosecution case.

9. The defence has also examined two witnesses D.W.1 Paku Sao and D.W.2 Dhani Ram in support of the defence version. It appears from the statement made by the said witnesses that they tried to make out a case that the appellant Dilip Kumar Samal was in inebriated condition on the said fateful day.

10. Learned trial court on conclusio