DAMAN LAL Vs. TUMAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/10/2016 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Link/Family Court, Balod (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the Family Court) in Misc. Criminal Case No.53/2012, whereby, the application filed under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants, respondents herein, has been allowed by the Family Court while directing the Non-applicant, petitioner herein, to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500.00 per month each to the applicants, respondents herein.

(2.) As per averments made by respondent No.1 in her application under Sec. 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), the petitioner, on the pretext of marriage, established a love relationship with respondent No.1, as a result of which, the respondent No.1 has become pregnant by 7 months and when she asked the petitioner to marry her, then he refused, for which, a meeting was convened in the village and on 14/6/2011, respondent No.1 Tuman Bai lodged a report in Police Station Devri and offence under Ss. 450, 376 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and during the pendency of the said criminal case, compromise took place between them and thereafter, the petitioner performed marriage with respondent No.1 as per their social customs. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of respondent No.1, the petitioner was acquitted of the said charges. After that, from their wedlock, on 16/9/2011, respondent No.2 was born. Thereafter, the petitioner started harassing respondent No.1 in connection with demand of dowry and ultimately in March, 2012, during Navratri festival, the petitioner ousted the respondents from his house, which compelled them to live at her parental home along with her daughter. It is further averred that the respondents are not capable to maintain themselves and that the petitioner, being a mason, earns Rs.200.00 250/- per day and also earns approximately Rs.50,000.00 per annum from agricultural work, therefore, the respondents may be granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.2,000.00 per month respectively from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner denied the averments made by the respondents by filing written statement, pleading therein that on 8/4/2010, he was married to one Punita Bai and has daughter out of their wedlock. It is further pleaded by him that a false case under Sec. 376 IPC was registered against by respondent No.1 and due to pressure, he agreed to keep respondent No.1 as his wife, but respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife and respondent No.2 is not his daughter and that he has no source of income.