JUDGEMENT
Sharma, J. -
(1.)This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ramlal, challenging the order dated July 29, 2006 of Judicial Magistrate Niwai in Criminal Case No. 195 of 1999 whereby the application under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 Prem was allowed and she was granted maintenance @ Rs. 300 per month from the date of filing the application till its disposal and further maintenance @ Rs. 800.00 per month till re-marriage of non-petitioner No.2.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the non-petitioner No.2 filed application under section 125 Code Criminal Procedure stating therein that the marriage between the petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 was performed in the month of April 1986. It has been stated that when her marriage was performed she was minor and in the year 1992 on the day of Ram Navmi her 'Gona' was done and she went with the petitioner at village Sobhagpura. For three years the behaviour of the petitioner was good and thereafter he started beating to her and told that her father has not given sufficient articles at the time of 'Gona'. On account of cruel ill-treatment the non-petitioner No.2 left the in-laws house and started living with her parents. It is stated in the application that the petitioner is in Government service and performed second marriage in village Bamanwas without her permission. She made a complaint under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner. The non-petitioner No.2 belongs to a poor family, hence not able to maintain herself. The petitioner belongs to a rich family and he is in service in the office of Accountant General and getting Rs. 8000.00 per month. He is also having 100 big has land and gets earning Rs. 50,000.00 annually from the said land. The non-petitioner No.2 in these circumstances prayed to grant maintenance Rs. 1000.00 per month from the petitioner. The non-petitioner No. 2 filed reply to the application and stated that due to misbehaviour by the family persons of non-petitioner No.2 the relations were closed before their marriage and marriage could not be held between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No-2. It was stated that neither the marriage was performed nor she came with the petitioner in any occasion of 'Gona' and the non- petitioner has falsely alleged the demand of dowry. It is stated that he is married with one Laxmi Meena. Proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were falsely alleged and he has filed an appeal before the High Court against that decree. The petitioner got examined five witnesses and exhibited 3 documents. The non-petitioner No.2 so as to substantiate its case examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents. The Magistrate after hearing both the parties allowed the application vide order dated July 29, 2006. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner against this order.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that while passing the impugned order the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the material and evidence obtaining on record. None of the witnesses produced on behalf of the non- petitioner has stated before the trial court that marriage ceremony had taken place as per customs among Meena caste. The learned counsel stated that even the non- petitioner No.2 herself has not stated regarding the rites and ceremonies which had taken place during the course of their alleged marriage. In absence of proving this fact that the non-petitioner No.2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.