SANDHYA @ SANTRABAI Vs. GAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have preferred this revision petition against the order dtd. 3/12/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.551/2014 by which learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District-Kabirdham partly allowed the application filed by applicants under Sec. 125 of CrPC and while rejecting claim of applicant No.1 for maintenance, awarded maintenance of Rs.1500.00 p.m. each to applicants No.2 and 3 from the date of order.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicants submits that non-applicant was earlier married with Sunita Bai and from the said wedlock he was blessed with one child. After the death of his first wife, non-applicant performed Chudi marriage with applicant No.1. Both of them resided happily for about 12 years and from their wedlock they are blessed with two child i.e. applicants No.2 and 3. After the Chudi marriage with applicant No.1, name of applicants were also recorded in the service book of non- applicant as his wife and children. Subsequently, without there being any sufficient cause, the non-applicant deserted the applicants and stopped maintaining them. Therefore, applicants have filed an application under Sec. 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, which came to be allowed in part by impugned order, allowing claim of applicants No.2 and 3, however, claim of applicant No.1 was rejected on the ground that she being Chudi wife and not legally married wife of non-applicant is not entitled for maintenance. Such finding of learned Family Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended that the amount awarded as monthly maintenance to applicants No.2 and 3 is also too meager and insufficient to meet their expenses. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the order dtd. 12/10/2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.755/2021, parties being Ashok Shrivastava v. Anju Samudri Shrivastava; Devarinti Venkatramana, Peddapanjani Mandal v. P.P., Hyd., reported in 2022 SCC Online AP 1310, Meghraj Sahu v. Lata Bai, reported in 2021 SCC Online Chh 1819 decided on 19/5/2021, Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and anther, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 342, Ramtabai Sahu v. Johan Ram Sahu, reported in 2018 SCC Online Chh 879 decided on 30/7/2018, Smt. Sukhraji v. Puran Prasad, in case of Criminal Revision No.471 of 2006 decided on 20/1/2017, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188.

(3.) Learned counsel for the non-applicant husband opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicants, submits that there is no error in the finding recorded by trial Court that applicant No.1 is not legally wedded wife of non-applicant. Applicant No.1 was earlier married with one Ramesh of village-Patharra, however, as she developed illicit relation with one Dharmendra @ Fondi, therefore, she left the house of her husband and started residing in the company of Dharmendra. Applicant No.1 was having illicit relationship and till date she has not taken divorce from her earlier husband in accordance with law. Applicant No.1 could not have performed the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage with Ramesh and therefore the submission of counsel for the applicant that the applicant No.1 the wife of the non-applicant, is not sustainable. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants No.2 and 3 was just and proper. It is further contention of counsel for non-applicant that after passing of the order under Sec. 125 of CrPC on 3/12/2015, the applicants have further filed application under Sec. 127 of CrPC before the Family Court on 9/3/2018 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to respondents No.2 and 3 and accordingly amount of compensation was enhanced by learned Family Court in the proceeding under Sec. 127 of CrPC vide order dtd. 9/3/2018 from Rs.1,500.00 to 2,500/- to applicants No.2 and 3. Revision with respect to applicant No.2 and 3 in view of the subsequent order passed by Family Court under Sec. 127 of CrPC in a proceeding initiated by applicants No.2 and 3 is not maintainable.