TULSI BAI Vs. DEVNARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 28.3.2006 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.34/2006 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C").

(2.) The petitioner, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month. The petitioner pleaded that she was married with the respondent 35 years back under Chhudi custom. In fact, the respondent was the husband of the elder sister of the petitioner. The .elder sister of the petitioner was the legally married wife of the respondent. There were 3-4 children out of the wedlock of the respondent and the elder sister of the petitioner. When the elder sister of the petitioner left the company of the respondent, the respondent married with the petitioner in the above manner. In 1988-89, the first wife of the respondent was brought by him; therefore, the petitioner was deserted. In the year 1996-97, a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C .was earlier filed, which ended into a compromise. Thereafter the petitioner was taken by the respondent, but after few days, she was again sent out by the respondent; therefore, the present petition was flied by her. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent has retired from the post of Traction Fitter in Railways. He has 3-4 acres of agricultural land and he is also getting monthly pension of Rs.6,000, therefore, the above amount of maintenance may be granted in her favour.

(3.) It appears that the respondent remained expert. The learned Principal Judge did not rely on the contentions of the petitioner that she was married with the respondent according to Chhudi custom. It was held that in an earlier proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, by a final order dated 7.4.1992, the petitioner was not held to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The Principal Judge also held that similar position remains in the present case also, as no appeal or revision was filed against the earlier order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.