The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of a husband to pay maintenance to his wife, considering the wife's inability to maintain herself and the husband's financial capacity, as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.08.2019, passed by Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, in Original Maintenance Case No.88 of 2018, by which the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) per month towards maintenance to the O.P. No. 2.

2. The case of the wife-O.P. No. 2 in brief is that she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 05.05.1985 and right from the beginning she was tortured by this petitioner and she lived in her matrimonial home for about four years and she gave birth to a daughter, namely Simpa Kumari and she has got her daughter married to one Santosh Kumar Gupta. However, in the meantime, her daughter was also ousted from her matrimonial home and at present she is living with her. It is also stated that the petitioner is not maintaining her although he earns Rs. 40,000/-per month by running a grocery shop and from the cultivable land and hence, an amount of Rs. 15,000/-per month may be allowed to her as maintenance

3. The case of the petitioner is that the wife has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she did not return though he has tried several times to bring her back. He has denied any torture and atrocities committed upon the O.P. No. 2-Wife. He has further even denied the birth of a female child and he denied running any grocery shop and any cultivable land and has stated that he is earning Rs.200/-per month by working as a labour.

4. Heard Mrs. Nirupama, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that O.P. No.2 has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she is living separately for more than 35 years. It is submitted that wife-O.P. No. 2 had an affair with someone else. It is submitted that petitioner has performed marriage with another girl and has got two children from the second marriage and maintaining his liabilities and hence it is submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the interested witnesses as P.W. 1 is the O.P. No. 2 herself, whereas P.W.2, namely Geeta Devi is the mother of P.W. 1 and therefore, she has supported the case of the O.P. No. 2-wife. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not properly considered the evidence of these witnesses, examined as P.W.1 and also P.W.2 and hence the impugned order may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Court below has granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/-per month. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2, namely Asha Devi and Geeta Devi respectively, has fully supported the case. It is submitted that this petitioner has performed second marriage without giving divorce to his first wife, i.e. O.P. No. 2 and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order.

7. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and heard learned counsel for both sides.

8. It transpires that marriage between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 was solemnized on 05.05.1985 and the petitioner has admitted his marriage with the O.P. No. 2.

9. It also appears from the judgment passed by the learned Court below that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, who are as follows:-

(i) P.W. 1 is Asha Devi, i.e. the wife-O.P. No. 2

(ii) P.W. 2 is Geeta Devi, mother of O.P. No. 2.

10. The petitioner has got examined two witnesses in support of his case, who are as follows:-

(i) O.P.W.1 is Girish Prasad Gupta, i.e. this petitioner

(ii) O.P.W.2 is