Patna High Court - Orders
Bimlesh Mehta @ Mithilesh Mehta vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 April, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.743 of 2008
BIMLESH MEHTA @ MITHILESH MEHTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
3 30.04.2009Heard.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.06.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No. 48 of 2006, whereby he allowed the application of Opp. Party No. 2 and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.600/- per month to her and Rs.400/- per month to Opp. Party No. 3, as ad interim maintenance.
Opposite Party Sangeeta Devi claims to be the wife of petitioner Bimlesh Mehta @ Mithilesh Mehta and she further claims that Opposite Party No. 3 Lucy Kumari has been born from their wedlock.
The submission of petitioner is that Opposite Party No. 2 has been living in adultery with one Baldeo Mehta and has married him also. In support of his contention learned counsel refers to Annexure-6, which is a photo copy of report submitted by A.S.I dated 19.08.2005. In this report name of the husband of Sangeet Devi has been described as Baldeo Mehta. Similarly the residential certificate, caste certificate and appointment letter also show Baldeo Mehta as her husband. The information collected under R.T.I as well as other documents would also show that one Baldeo Mehta has been described as her husband.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that Baldeo Mehta is her brother-in-law and in fact the aforesaid -2- application forms were submitted by her at the instance of other persons and she did not understand the implication of the same. Opposite Party No. 2 denies any extra -marital relationship with Baldeo Mehta.
Whatever may be the defence of Opposite Party No. 2 in this regard the material coming on record point out that Opposite Party No. 2 knowingly or unknowingly has described herself as wife of aforesaid Baldeo Mehta. In the backdrop of aforesaid materials, it is difficult to accept at this stage that opposite party no. 2 has not married Baldeo Mehta. Thus she has become disentitled to any maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The next issue is whether Lucy Kumari has been born from wedlock with this petitioner. The petitioner has refuted the claim of O.P. No. 2 that Lucy Kumari is his daughter and entitled to maintenance.
The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that she married the petitioner in the year 1994. It would appear from the application filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C in 2006 that Lucy Kumari was above four years then. According to the Opposite Party No. 2, Lucy Kumari was born in the year 2002. The petitioner has asserted that Opposite Party No. 2 has been living with aforesaid Baldeo Mehta soon after the marriage itself. However, the documents filed by the petitioner in proof of his submission that she has married Baldeo Mehta are of the year 2003 and onwards. Furthermore, there is no convincing oral evidence on record to show -3- that Lucy Kumari was not born from the wedlock with Opposite Party No. 2. At this stage again, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that Lucy Kumari is not his daughter.
Thus this Court holds that Opposite Party No. 3 would be entitled to maintenance from the petitioner being his minor daughter. The learned trial court has allowed maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to Opposite Party No. 3 from the date of filing of the case. This part of the order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is upheld. The petitioner is directed to pay the arrears within a period of six months in equal monthly instalments. The current maintenance to Opposite Party No. 3 @ Rs.400/- must be paid by 10th of the subsequent month.
As Opposite Party No. 2 has been litigating on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 also, she would be entitled to a litigation cost of Rs.4000/- as directed by the trial court and it must be paid by the petitioner to Opposite Party No. 2.
With the aforesaid direction, this application is partially allowed.
Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)