(1.) THE appellant claims to be the second wife of respondent No.2, a marriage stated to have been solemnized on 11.12.1977 by a misrepresentation of respondent No2 that he was a bachelor while, in fact, he was already married. From the wedlock two daughters were born in 1981 and 1983, who are married and settled in their matrimonial home and have no interest in the litigation.
(2.) THE appellant lodged a criminal complaint only in October, 1993, before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against respondent No.2 for committing offences under Sections 494 & 495 IPC, where after the framing of charges he was convicted vide judgement dated 17.9.2002 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short RI) for three (3) years and fine of Rs. 5,000.00 was imposed. However, in appeal filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, the conviction of respondent No.2 was maintained but the sentence was reduced to fourteen (14) days RI, which respondent No.2 had already undergone and the fine was increased from Rs. 5,000.00 to Rs. 1,00,000.00 as per the judgement dated 14.1.2004. THE appellant aggrieved by the said order claims to have filed a Criminal Revision No.238/2004 in the High Court, which is still pending.
(3.) THE appellant initiated CS (OS) No.2395/2009 claiming right in the aforesaid immovable property predicated on a plea of the appellant that the Supreme Court had put its seal of imprimatur on the ownership of the appellant in the property. THE maintenance claim of the appellant resulted in the judgement and decree dated 13.7.2007 passed by the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground that the appellant was not the legally wedded wife and consequently was not entitled to maintenance under the said Act. THE appellant was, however, successful before this Court in RFA No.575/2005 which held vide judgement dated 20.9.2007 that the appellant was entitled to maintenance. THEreafter orders have been passed by the trial court on 19.4.2008 granting maintenance to the appellant @ Rs. 4,000.00 per month from the date of application, i.e., 11.4.1997 and Rs. 7,000.00 per month from 20.9.2007. Since these maintenance amounts had not been paid, the appellant filed Execution Petition No.281/2011 seeking attachment, which is pending consideration. THE quantification of this amount has been assailed by the appellant by filing RFA No.511/2009, which is pending consideration before this Court. However, while considering the interim application in that appeal, vide order dated 30.5.2011, the claim of respondent No.2 of inability to pay maintenance was rejected. It is also relevant to note that while fixing the maintenance @ Rs. 7,000.00 per month post 20.9.2007, it has been observed that this quantum of maintenance would continue till the appellant continues to remain in possession of the second floor of the property but in case the appellant was to leave that property by an order of the court or otherwise, she would be entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 12,000.00 per month.