MAKHAN LAL @ LALTA PRASAD Vs. KANYAWATI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal revision, the revisionist Makhan Lal @ Lalta Prasad seeks to stay the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 17th of November, 2011, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haldwani in criminal misc. application no. 120 of 2011, moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Kanyawati and another vs. Makhan Lal.

(2.) A misc. application no. 120 of 2011 was moved on behalf of Kanyawati and her son, age five years, against the revisionist Makhan Lal for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was stated in the application that Kanyawati was married to Makhan Lal in the year 2005 according to Hindu rites and rituals. According to the Kanyawati, Master Sooraj was borne out of the wedlock of Kanyawati and Makhan Lal. Earlier Kanyawati was married to elder brother (Prem Pal) of Makhan Lal. When Prem Pal died, Kanyawati was married to Prem Pal s younger brother Makhan Lal (revisionist). Applicant no. 2 Master Sooraj (O.P. No. 2 in the present revision) was born after the marriage of Kanyawati with Makhan Lal. In the year 2006, Kanyawati was ousted from her matrimonial home on the pretext that she did not bring sufficient dowry. The applicants/opposite parties were unable to maintain themselves and the opposite party/revisionist refused to maintain them (i.e. wife & child of the revisionist). The opposite party/revisionist is an agriculturist/farmer. A notice was issued by learned Family Curt, Nainital. The same was served. When the revisionist did not appear before the Family Court, the proceedings were ordered to be initiated against him ex-parte. PW 1 Kanyawati was examined, in which she said that she along with her child was maltreated by he opposite party/ revisionist. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and therefore, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. It was indicated by PW 1 in her examination-in-chief that the opposite party has sufficient means to maintain the applicants but they are not being maintained by the opposite party/revisionist. After considering the evidence on record, the learned court below awarded a maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per mensem to applicant no. 1 Kanyawati and the maintenance of Rs. 500 per mensem to Master Sooraj, till he attains the age of majority. The impugned order was made effective from the date of the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that Smt. Kanyawati was married to Makhan Lal. Learned counsel for the revisionist drew the attention of this Court towards the extract of Family Register (annexure -3) to the revision indicting that the name of husband of Kanyawati was shown as late Prem Pal. There was no denying the fact that Kanyawati was earlier married to Prem Pal. She was married to the revisionist after the death of Prem Pal. It appears that the entry in the family register has not been updated.