SANT PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief reference to the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').

(2.) A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 14, Farrukhabad by opposite party No. 2 Smt.Sanju and opposite party No. 3 Vipin Kumar against the revisionist Sant Pratap Singh which was registered in that Court as Crl. Case No. 20/12/07. The said petition was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 7.5.2007. The learned Magistrate dismissed the claim of opposite party No. 2 whereas he awarded a maintenance of Rs. 2000/- p.m. to opposite party No. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the revisionist filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad who after hearing the case allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and remanded back the case for fresh hearing to the learned trial court. Thereafter the matter was heard by the learned Judicial Magistrate, City, who vide his judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 allowed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 2200/- p.m. to opposite party No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 2100/-p.m. to opposite party No. 3. Feeling aggrieved by all the three orders the revisionist has filed the present revision.

(3.) The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the Court of learned Magistrate with the allegations that opposite party No. 2 was married to the revisionist on 10.2.1994 and out of this wedlock opposite party No. 3 was born. The revisionist is posted in the police department. After having a married life of some 6-7 years the revisionist due to certain reasons turned out opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 from his house after abusing and assaulting them. On enquiry the opposite party No. 2 came to know that the revisionist was having illicit relationship with one Smt. Kamlesha. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have further alleged in the petition that both of them are not in a position to maintain themselves. It has further been contended therein that opposite party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist whereas opposite party No. 3 is his legitimate son. The revisionist contested the claim. He denied the allegations and averments levelled against him in the claim petition. He further stated that he was married to Smt. Kamlesha in the year 1977 and both of them are living together since then as husband and wife and they have two children out of this wedlock. The revisionist has further stated in his objection moved before the learned Magistrate that Dhan Singh is his real brother and a property dispute is there between the two. It has also been stated that opposite party No. 2 is a kept of Dhan Singh and opposite party No. 3 is his illegitimate child. The revisionist has further stated that on the instigation of Dhan Singh opposite party No. 2 has filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with false allegations in order to extract money from the revisionist. After hearing both the parties the picture which emerged before the learned Magistrate was that the revisionist had married Smt. Kamlesha in the year 1977 but unfortunately the couple could not beget a child. Thereafter in the year 1994 the revisionist married opposite party No. 2. This was his second marriage. Out of this second wedlock a son was born who is opposite party No. 3. After the birth of opposite party No. 3 Smt. Kamlesha the first wife of the revisionist became pregnant and she also gave birth to a male child. Thereafter another child was also born to Smt. Kamlesha. After a few years the revisionist started avoiding his second wife, opposite party No. 2 and after sometime started maltreating her and one day he turned her out of his house alongwith opposite party No. 3. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 alongwith her son went to her father's home and since then she is living there having no means to maintain herself and her minor son.