JUDGMENT

B.K. PATEL, J. — This revision is directed against order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cut¬tack in Criminal Proceeding No.812 of 2002 directing the peti¬tioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to pay to the opposite party Rs.1,000/- and her son Rs.500/- towards maintenance from the date of application subject to adjustment of interim mainte¬nance already paid alongwith litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

2. Asserting her to be the petitioner’s wife, opposite party filed application for award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for herself and Rs.1,000/- for her minor son per month and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. According to opposite party, her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 12.3.1993 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. In response to petitioner’s demand, opposite party’s father paid sum of Rs.40,000/- alongwith gold ornaments and other household articles at the time of marriage. Out of their wedlock a male child was born on 19.5.1994 after which the petitioner took them to Bhubaneswar where he was working. While living in Bhubaneswar the petitioner subjected the opposite party to physical and mental torture in connection with his demand for Rs.40,000/- as dowry in order to purchase a car. Opposite party’s father could manage to pay to the petitioner Rs.20,000/- only which was utilized by the petitioner for purchasing house hold articles. Also, petitioner remained absent for a period of five to six days in a month on the pretext of undertaking official tours. On 15.9.2001 the petitioner came to his house with one Lovabati Mallik (O.P.W.2) and on being asked he stated that she was working in his office. Petitioner also stated that O.P.W.2 would reside with them in the house as petitioner’s mistress as he had married her. On enquiry she could learn that the petitioner had illicit relationship with O.P.W.2 prior to her marriage. During the stay of O.P.W.2 in their house, petitioner physically assaulted opposite party on many occasions at the instance of O.P.W.2. Finding no other way opposite party sent information regarding the situation to her father’s house. On intervention of some persons including oppo¬site party’s cousin brother, the matter was compromised and it was decided that the petitioner would not have any relationship with O.P.W.2 and she would not be allowed to live in their house. However, on the very day, after departure of persons on whose intervention compromise had been effected, petitioner and O.P.W.2 tied opposite party’s hands and legs and assaulted her by means of a lathi. When she shouted they gagged her by a piece of cloth. When opposite party’s son started shouting, petitioner and O.P.W.2 left the house and resided together in another house. Opposite party apprehending danger to her life came to her father’s house with her son. Opposite party’s father and other relations tried to meet the petitioner but he avoided them. In such circum¬stances, opposite party lodged F.I.R. on the basis of which Khandagiri P.S. Case No.289 of 2001 was registered and in course of investigation petitioner and O.P.W.2 were arrested. Petitioner having no source of income to maintain herself and her son who was reading in Class-III whereas the petitioner’s had income of Rs.7,000/- per month from salary and Rs.50,000/- per annum from agricultural land, application for maintenance was filed.

3. In his written statement petitioner admitted that he was an employee in the office of Executive Engineer, Central Ground Water Board, Bhubaneswar but he denied the allegations made by the opposite party. However, it was averred that his salary was around Rs.2,200/- per month. He also denied to have received Rs.40,000/- alongwith gold ornaments as well as other household articles towards dowry. It was asserted in the written statement that opposite party lodged F.I.R. against him and O.P.W.2 on false allegations. It was categorically averred in the written statement